Claim it on a single squeeze

[blackshoe]

I don't speak for Sven, and I didn't presume to say what he meant. I said what I thought he meant. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. But it seems a number of others agree with me.

[barmar]

Yeah, my interpretation would have been right if he'd said "if the claim wouldn't be obvious to everybody" rather than "isn't obvious" -- the latter implies that the claim was made and the opponents expressed confusion. However, many people don't always this form (is it the subjunctive?) when necessary, and I made an assumption that it was what he meant.

[TimG]

There are three lines that lead to going down:

- Cash all five diamonds, without noticing his mistake, throwing dummy's spade losers. Since he plans to throw all of dummy's major-suit losers, it's a normal line to start by throwing the spades.

- Realise his mistake early, and decide to take two spade finesses rather than play the squeeze. That is judging that a hand like QJxx QJx xx Kxxx is more likely than a hand like ?xxxx QJ10x xx Kx.

- Realise his mistake early, start playing the squeeze line, and then change his mind when a spade honour drops offside.

I don't think one should be allowed to change a claim based upon a realization. I would take a "claim without statement" as meaning "I'm going to cash top tricks". If he is a trick short, the "realization" might well take place at trick 13. So, I don't think your 2nd and 3rd options should be considered possible lines as a result of the claim.

[pran]

Huh? Doesn't play stop at the claim point? Or did you mean Declarer just putting cards down in succession to illustrate his claim?

No, I meant play it out instead of claiming unless the claim is obvious.

Of course I also favour declarer putting down his cards quickly in succession to illustrate the sequence in which he intends to play them.

 

But my experience is that once a player doesn't immediately understand (and accept) a claim the explanation takes more time than it would have taken to just complete the play without a claim.

[bluejak]

No, I meant play it out instead of claiming unless the claim is obvious.

Declarer saw 12 top tricks - the claim was completely obvious to him.

 

I think many of these posts suggest bridge is played in a computer-like environment. Declarers who play out a hand which is all top tricks don't think about irrelevancies, like keeping menaces for the fourteenth trick.

 

So if he won in hand at trick one, playing five diamonds now and discarding two spades before he even turns his brain back on is normal. If he won in dummy at trick one, playing off the ace-king of spades and not bothering to notice the ten was good is a normal line.

 

One off is routine for a non-thinking declarer, and so one off is routine for a ruling.

[Sjoerds]

The only question here is: "is it 6NT-1 or -2?" The double finish in spades still has some 25% and that is nice for an hopeless contract. :D

[aguahombre]

The only question here is: "is it 6NT-1 or -2?" The double finish in spades still has some 25% and that is nice for an hopeless contract. :D

Lamford agreed with you, much earlier. Gnasher mentions another line which would lead to down 2. However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

[Sjoerds]

Lamford agreed with you, much earlier. Gnasher mentions another line which would lead to down 2. However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

Fair enough for me

[lamford]

However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

If cashing out winners accidentally led to making it - say dummy had to follow and could not discard more than one spade - then I would still rule that declarer went down. All we have to do is decide on the worst normal line. The Laws do not say a normal line only cashing winners; they say, or imply, a normal line of any type. And while declarer cannot usually take a successful finesse, he can still be deemed to take an unsuccessful finesse if it is a normal line. I still think down two is correct, and normal. I would expect to go 2 down, losing a spade and a club, if I played it out; now many people think my declarer play is not normal, but it is usually only careless.

[Vampyr]

Declarers who play out a hand which is all top tricks don't think about irrelevancies, like keeping menaces for the fourteenth trick.

 

 

 

Why do you say this? I do this quite a lot, actually; usually about 5 or 6 tricks from the end I realise that I have enough winners. Then I claim.

[blackshoe]

If you have (or think you have) all top tricks, they're all winners. Are you sure you and David are talking about the same situation?

[Vampyr]

If you have (or think you have) all top tricks, they're all winners. Are you sure you and David are talking about the same situation?

 

I think so, if David was talking about having all top tricks but not realising you do.

[barmar]

The Laws do not say a normal line only cashing winners; they say, or imply, a normal line of any type.

What they say (or imply) is a normal line of play consistent with the claim statement. If the claim was that you had all winners, then I think all the normal lines involve cashing those winners, the only "intelligence" we typically allow is not stupidly blocking suits.

 

If some orders of cashing the winners get lucky (e.g. dropping a doubleton honor) while others don't, the claim will be adjudicated with the less favorable result because the benefit of the doubt goes to the NOS.

[lamford]

What they say (or imply) is a normal line of play consistent with the claim statement.

If the claim statement is absent as here, or nonsensical, then it is effectively ignored, and the worst normal line is "imposed". If the TD thinks the claim statement means "cashing the twelve winners in some sensible order", then there is no line of play consistent with the claim statement. And we are told he claimed without statement, so any line of play is consistent with that. And just because the claim statement involves, or implies, cashing winners, does not mean that one has to follow it when it breaks down.

[blackshoe]

Bottom line: if you do not state a line of play, and it is possible to lose, you lose. Stating a line of play at least increases the chance that you won't lose. So if you're going to claim, state a line. If you can't see a clear line, don't claim. I'm not saying don't claim if there's an "if" in your line, though as someone said upthread, if there's more than one "if" you probably shouldn't. But you have to be able to articulate a clear line, and doing so to yourself before you actually claim ought to be a part of the process. If you get lazy, expect to lose.

[bluejak]

I think so, if David was talking about having all top tricks but not realising you do.

I don't see the relevance of that.

 

Naturally, I am talking about a declarer who believes he has all top tricks but is playing it out. Does he really keep a menace so as to make a fourteenth trick?

[CamHenry]

I don't see the relevance of that.

 

Naturally, I am talking about a declarer who believes he has all top tricks but is playing it out. Does he really keep a menace so as to make a fourteenth trick?

 

... depends if the menace is the ♦7, requiring partner to furnish a round of drinks.

[Lovera]

Interesting this hand: there is a triple squeeze for W (heart Q from a sequence takes K9 against J10 and if club K is in W too..). After that spade K pitch J is consequential to play A getting to spade 8 against 9.

[Lovera]

There is a second ending if you leads A and K of spade after A of heart on Queen and run three top diamonds getting to a (secondary) three losers delayed duck criss-cross squeeze: on Jack W is forced to descard an heart, last diamond pitching 8 of spade (on club discart) and you can win a return to realize last heart winner (after little for King and 9 for W's 10). But we have sureness only in heart (sequence) and spade and able to read a 5-4-2-2 and not for club King position: in this case if King is in East W on last two diamonds will descart two clubs and you can impasse ( you always retain cards in suit for this eventuality ).

(Lovera)