Calamitous Claim

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9762hk7da53cajt2&w=sqhqj4djt962c9843&n=sakthat82dkq74cq5&e=sj8543h9653d8ck76]399|300[/hv] 6NT by South, J♦ lead. Table result: TD imposed 6NT=.

 

As it is at least a month since I have made up an imaginary claim, it is time to show a genuine one, and an appeal from the Pula International Tournament, BAM teams. North-South are a strong Polish pair, East-West (our team-mates) a reasonable London pair, and both teams were in the middle of the table. The bidding is irrelevant.

 

Declarer won the diamond lead in dummy (although the TD record had that as being won in South) and played ace, king and another spade, East winning, while West discarded a diamond and a club (perforce). While East was thinking, declarer claimed, spreading his hand, but withdrew his claim seconds later. The TD was called, and South stated he thought the jack of clubs was the king. The TD went away and realised that declarer only had 11 tricks anyway, and asked South, a few minutes later, how he proposed to make 12 tricks. South stated that West had discarded a club, and that he would discover the clubs were now 3-3 in due course. The TD ruled 6NT= but East-West (my team mates) appealed on the basis that there were quite a number of squeeze positions to play for, and not all of them would necessarily succeed. South could not have known that he had triple squeezed West on the third spade, and no line had been stated.

 

An eminent AC was convened of Jan Jansma (NLD), John Våge (NOR) and Matthias Schüller (GER), all experienced TDs. How should they rule?

[mamos]

If you think ♣K is in your hand, it seems best to win the Spade continuation and cross to the ♣Q in dummy

 

Down 2

[iviehoff]

and asked South, a few minutes later, how he proposed to make 12 tricks. South stated that West had discarded a club, and that he would discover the clubs were now 3-3 in due course.

Is the player saying that is why he claimed in the first place? I don't think so. I think this just an ex post justification as to why he would get a 12th tricks in practice if allowed to wake up and take the club finesse and cash the 11 top tricks he was really claiming when he both misidentified the CJ and miscounted. I don't think it was helpful or necessary to ask this question.

 

With such an incoherent claim statement, with two errors that might be woken up to at various and separate times, I think that appeal committee should not feel particularly constrained by South's claim statement at all, but rather if there are "normal lines" that go down, could rule on that basis. The squeeze point indicates that this is the case. Mamos's ruling, which depends upon the card misidentification persisting in declarer's mind until too late, also looks a legal and reasonable ruling.

[ahydra]

Here's my logic:

- The Laws don't provide for claims to be withdrawn (although 68D doesn't seem to preclude declarer from doubting his own claim?)

- "I thought the CJ was the CK" doesn't look like it's compatible with 68C so we can't really treat it as a claim statement

- So we're looking for normal lines of play, like iviehoff said

 

It seems normal to cash everything and deal with a squeeze or finesse last. Now I'm no expert on squeezes but they all seem to involve West who is already in trouble, and they all seem to involve taking the club finesse, so I'd award 12 tricks.

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

declarer claimed, spreading his hand, but withdrew his claim seconds later.

Presumably he did this unprompted?

[iviehoff]

Presumably he did this unprompted?

What does it matter? Whether declarer did this prompted or unprompted, whoever (of the 4 players) indicated any dissatisfaction with the claim, it simply leads to the claim being adjudicated (L68D). The only circumstance where anything other than adjudication can happen is the circumstances of L70D3, which is when a defender denies partner's concession (bizarre bridge laws Exhibit No 1).

 

The law further says (68C) that a claim must be accompanied "at once" by a clarification statement. So if you make a statement, and then after some pause of your own volition realise you need to "clarify" a bit more, or correct the statement, you are too late, even if everyone else remained in information-free silence during the pause.

[iviehoff]

It seems normal to cash everything and deal with a squeeze or finesse last. Now I'm no expert on squeezes but they all seem to involve West who is already in trouble, and they all seem to involve taking the club finesse, so I'd award 12 tricks.

Generally speaking, L70E makes it very difficult for declarer to rely upon a finesse he didn't mention in his claim statement. But on this occasion, I am happy to accept that, to the extent that declarer is aware that 3 tricks in clubs he relied on in making his claim only come from taking a finesse, there is no rational alternative to taking the club finesse.

 

The problem is that declarer has owned up to the fact that he was unaware of the need to take a finesse in clubs at the time of making the claim - he would hardly have claimed if he had been. So who can say exactly when he would wake up to this misperception if he were playing on instead of making a claim? Even if you don't like Mamos' ruling, declarer might, for example, cash dummy's red-suit winners and return to hand before he wakes up, and now find himself unable to take the finesse. Not very good play, but then we are adjudicating a claim here on the assumption that a player thinks he just has to cash his winners, which is what he thought when he claimed.

[Vampyr]

Presumably he did this unprompted?

 

Yes, and fairly quickly.

[gordontd]

Generally speaking, L70E makes it very difficult for declarer to rely upon a finesse he didn't mention in his claim statement. But on this occasion, I am happy to accept that, to the extent that declarer is aware that 3 tricks in clubs he relied on in making his claim only come from taking a finesse, there is no rational alternative to taking the club finesse.

Presumably you wouldn't take that view if the only reason he realised that his CJ was not the CK (and therefore leading low to the CQ was not a normal play) was by being prompted by his partner?

[phil_20686]

It seems like there is only one rational way for a good player to play, which is to rely on the double squeeze with extended menance. Last four cards: - T x Qx opposite - - - AJTx. This squeezes whoever holds the club guard provided they guard at least one other suit. With the red menaces both in one hand, there is not even a chance for a compound squeeze or anything. The fact that west has all guards and is therefore triple squeezed is irrelevant.

[iviehoff]

Presumably you wouldn't take that view if the only reason he realised that his CJ was not the CK (and therefore leading low to the CQ was not a normal play) was by being prompted by his partner?

Indeed: I was rehearsing the argument in order to explain why it was not applicable on this occasion. I would only take that view if he realises that the CJ is the CJ at the time of making his claim, for example had simply forgotten to mention the finesse, or didn't think it worth mentioning on the grounds of obviousness.

 

The only possible exception would be if it can be convincing argued he must wake up to it in time to avoid going down due to legitimate external factors, eg, an opponent would perforce play the CK himself. But I don't think there is any likelihood of that.

[TimG]

I think declarer should be stuck with the information he had when he made the claim, and that was the (mistaken) information that he held the ♣K instead of the ♣J. As mamos says, with that information, low to the ♣Q is normal. . .and down two.

 

As an aside, I had thought it not allowed to take a finesse that was not a part of an original claim. For instance, if someone claimed the rest of the tricks, a defender says "but, you don't have enough tricks" and then declarer says "you're right, I guess I have to take this finesse" the finesse would not be allowed and declarer would be down.

 

Suppose declarer had instead said "I have the rest [5 trick]: a spade, a heart, and two diamonds. . .oh wait, that's only 4 tricks, I guess I'll have to take the diamond finesse for my 5th trick." I think the finesse should still not be allowed.

 

I think this claim is the same sort of thing. An expert can claim on an automatic entry-shifting, criss-cross, trump squeeze, but he should state as much in his claim.

[iviehoff]

It seems like there is only one rational way for a good player to play, which is to rely on the double squeeze with extended menance. Last four cards: - T x Qx opposite - - - AJTx.

The law doesn't use the word "rational". It does at one point use the word "irrational", which by implication must mean "worse than careless or inferior". We are therefore looking for "normal" plays (not rational plays) and "normal" plays include "careless" and "inferior" plays. Given that the player thought he held the CK in his hand and thought he had 12 tricks off the top at the time of making the claim, normal plays here will include "careless" and "inferior" plays for a player who thinks he holds the CK, and hasn't noticed that even if he does he is still a trick short. You have to argue that even under such misapprehensions, he will still find no way of avoiding winning the 12th trick, short of making "irrational" plays.

[lamford]

Presumably he did this unprompted?

Yes, he did, and this was one reason why the TD thought that he would in due course notice that the jack of clubs was the jack, not the king.

[lamford]

If you think ♣K is in your hand, it seems best to win the Spade continuation and cross to the ♣Q in dummy

 

Down 2

The AC ruled down 1, and I was told that it was close between down 1 and making. My view is that the actual decision, down 1, is correct, and is "equity". Down 2 is too harsh, and making is ridiculous. I thought the following:

a) Declarer's line of play, cashing top spades first, shows that he was unaware that he was missing the king of clubs until moments after the claim. He discovered it himself, however, and I am confident that he would have noticed it if playing on.

b) Declarer still only had 11 (typo corrected) top tricks even if his hand included the king of clubs. If East were guarding hearts and diamonds and West clubs (so that East is 5-3-4-1 with any club singleton, and South actually having the king of clubs instead of the jack), then there may be a compound squeeze but a European Champion (who thought it was a single-dummy problem) could not find a 100% line, as you need to be able to squeeze West too.

c) Even if there is a 100% line, we are judging South as someone who at that moment in time was unable to count up to 13. Why should he notice that he has triple-squeezed West and can now make the two of clubs? Why should he not miscount diamonds and think that the 13th diamond is a winner? Both involve counting up to 13 and failure to do so correctly is careless. For this particular declarer to miscount was normal.

d) I consider that thinking that the jack of clubs is the king is worse than careless, so even if South did think that, in ruling on the claim he is allowed to notice that the king is the jack, and, for the avoidance of doubt, if South's fourth club were the nine (all other things being equal) I would have agreed with the TD.

Edited September 25, 2012 by lamford

[gordontd]

Yes, he did, and this was one reason why the TD thought that he would in due course notice that the jack of clubs was the jack, not the king.

It sounds as though he may already have noticed this, unless there was another reason for him wanting to withdraw his claim - like not having enough tricks.

 

Certainly leading low to the Q is not a normal line for a player who knows he is missing the K, and it seems from what we have been told that he would not have done it had he played it out.

 

Now I know that the claim laws do not tell us to rule according to what would have happened had it been played out, but nor do they tell us that declarer is bound by a mis-apprehension that was not part of his claim statement.

 

What was his claim statement? Nothing. Is leading low to the Q a normal line consistent with that? I don't think so.

[gordontd]

So if you make a statement, and then after some pause of your own volition realise you need to "clarify" a bit more, or correct the statement, you are too late,

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

[ahydra]

Hmm. To award down 1 based on "miscounting is normal for this declarer" sounds like a ruling designed to appease the appealing side more than anything else :/

 

This was an international tournament and the OP states NS were a strong pair. This suggests he is of a good enough standard to count the clubs (and other suits) correctly. Either that, or I could start making serious money playing international bridge since I can count several entire hands in a row on a good day...

 

Can one really argue that because he miscounted his tricks, he'll miscount a suit as well?

 

Lamford - I assume in your b) it's meant to say 11, not 12, top tricks. I feel declarer will surely play the 4th spade and then some diamonds. Now if the AC can produce a normal line of play starting with this that leads to down 1 (eg a failing squeeze), I'll buy it.

 

ahydra

[iviehoff]

The AC ruled down 1, and I was told that it was close between down 1 and making. My view is that the actual decision, down 1, is correct, and is "equity". Down 2 is too harsh, and making is ridiculous.

Normally in a teams event, the difference between down 1 and down 2 is likely to be nugatory, though it is just possible at BAM it makes all the difference.

 

Oh for weighted rulings on claims.

[gnasher]

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

Are you saying that what was in declarer's mind when he claimed is irrelevant, and we should consider only what he actually said at the time of the claim? That's what the rules seem to say, but I don't like it much.

 

(I asked the same question in another thread, but didn't get many answers.)

[iviehoff]

Are you saying that what was in declarer's mind when he claimed is irrelevant, and we should consider only what he actually said at the time of the claim?

That's not what I was saying when I first wrote that. The point is that on this occasion, what the claimer said later was an attempt to rationalise why in practice he thought he would get 12 tricks if he played on, not a reflection of what was in his mind at the time of the claim.

 

The law explicitly says that the TD should ask the claimer to repeat his statement of claim. In the case that it doesn't make much sense, it seems proper to ask him explain it. That isn't permission to change it or add new stuff not implied by it.

[c_corgi]

Surely declarer's statement is (from the director's POV) nothing more than a tool to determine what was in declarer's mind when he claimed. It is often the only evidence available, but L70D3 is an example of another possible source of evidence. If declarer tells you what was in his mind when it was against his interests to do so, it seems like reliable evidence which it would be ridiculous to ignore.

[barmar]

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

But when does "after the claim" start?

 

If the claimant says "I have the rest [5 trick]: a spade, a heart, and two diamonds. . .oh wait, that's only 4 tricks, I guess I'll have to take the diamond finesse for my 5th trick." why isn't the stuff after "oh wait" part of the claim? As long as there was no interference by another player that prompted the correction, I think the finesse can be considered part of the claim statement.

 

But maybe I just think that because I've been in a similar situation myself.

[iviehoff]

But when does "after the claim" start?

 

If the claimant says "I have the rest [5 trick]: a spade, a heart, and two diamonds. . .oh wait, that's only 4 tricks, I guess I'll have to take the diamond finesse for my 5th trick." why isn't the stuff after "oh wait" part of the claim? As long as there was no interference by another player that prompted the correction, I think the finesse can be considered part of the claim statement.

L70D1 refers to the "original clarification statement":

 

"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."

 

I think a change of mind would not be considered the "original clarification statement" even if it arrived without a pause.

 

You've got one chance to get it right.

[gnasher]

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

 

I don't think that's what the Laws tell us to do. We are told to discount any successful line of play he offers after the claim (assuming there are unsuccessful alternatives), but I can't see anything that tells us to ignore everything he says.

 

If we're allowed to take into account play that occurs after the claim, it seems reasonable to also consider what he tells us about his thoughts when he claimed, especially if that leads us to reject the claim.