mrdct Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 The TD should only do that (find out what declarer actually meant) if the clarification statement is ambiguous.The ambiguity arises from the fact that the verbalised line is a very unexpected line for an expert declarer to be taking, coupled with the suggestion by East that something else may have been intended. The TD needs to adjudicate on the claim as equitably under Law 70A and apply the balance of probabilities in determining the facts under Law 85A1. In finding equity on the board, he needs to get to the bottom of what line declarer was actually intending to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 There is a degree of ambiguity in the claim, as it is not clear whether he would finesse the Club on the second round after the J has failed to drop on the first round. Given that the finesse works on this hand, so he makes regardless of whether he finesses on the second or third round, perhaps it is an ambiguity which it is safe to ignore. Next time, RHO will have Jx and if he makes the same statement of claim .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 It's not so much ambiguous as seeming to be nonsensical. Kind of like holding ♦AKQJ and ♣A432, and claiming "I'm going to run the clubs and cash the diamond ace." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted September 19, 2011 Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 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.I don't see that must necessarily be so. If Declarer said to dummy "Cash the Ace of Hearts and then follow that with a small spade" before anyone had played to the HA, I think he has designated what he is going to play to the next trick. And I doubt a director would let him change his mind. And if dummy possessed the SA not the HA, we might acknowledge this was an unintended designation of "Cash the A of Spades and follow that with a small heart". I know "Run the hearts" has been ruled to mean "Carry on leading hearts until I change my mind, not necessarily to the end". But then "run the hearts" was always a concept that was vague or at least conditional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 [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.Standard overtaking squeeze. No jettison involved so a clearly inappropriate term. Ok, what have I missed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 <snip> is an example from Chien-Hwa Wang Thanks Standard overtaking squeeze. No jettison involved so a clearly inappropriate term. Well, there's no jettison in nosittej, is there? :) If you swap ♠A with ♠K it's a jettison squeeze (but is positional, so also swap East & West). I agree that this one seems simpler and it seems odd to name this one after the jettison squeeze. This site calls this a blocked squeeze. 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.