claim in 3NT

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa93hda84c&w=s86h7djtct&n=skqthdc975&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

 

South (reasonably competent) on lead in 3NT has lost 2 tricks.

She claims 11 saying "the clubs are high"

 

Can the defenders/director hold her to 8 tricks by requiring

♦A, ♠AK, ♣9?

[aguahombre]

TD can do that. Defender can't do anything but call the TD when they contest the claim. However, I know one defender who would acquiesce to 9 tricks.

[JLOGIC]

Of course, declarer thinks clubs are high so might cash their winners in any order since it's irrelevant. Down 1. I know some people in this forum disagree with that but if you think you have all winners you could certainly cash them in a random order and it is beneficial to the claiming side to allow them to make when they might have gone down otherwise given what they thought.

[wank]

down 2. no reason declarer can't 'unblock' the a of d on the supposed club winner. it's hardly far-fetched - after ace of spades, spade to dummy, declarer thinks she can file her own hand in the toilet

[blackshoe]

Well, if you rule two down, declarer will come to one of two conclusions:

 

1. Oops. I guess i should state a clear line of play whenever I claim.

2. *(&(*&^%) Director stole four tricks from me!

 

I know which one I'd bet on.

 

Note: I am not saying I would not rule two down for this reason.

[aguahombre]

Well, if you rule two down, declarer will come to one of two conclusions:

 

1. Oops. I guess i should state a clear line of play whenever I claim.

2. *(&(*&^%) Director stole four tricks from me!

 

I know which one I'd bet on.

 

Note: I am not saying I would not rule two down for this reason.

Actually, he stated a clear enough line of play for me. He said the clubs are high, and he was wrong; but, he focussed on the Clubs. He said nothing about the ace of Diamonds. From that, I would allow an immediate cross to dummy with a spade and then an immediate club play. That would give the opponents a club and a heart for making 3.

 

Ordering a pitch of the Diamond Ace would be arbitrary and punitive; that is not how I see my job or wish it to be seen.

[ahydra]

down 2. no reason declarer can't 'unblock' the a of d on the supposed club winner. it's hardly far-fetched - after ace of spades, spade to dummy, declarer thinks she can file her own hand in the toilet

 

I can name one reason: everyone and their dog, cat, snake, etc... discards suits from the lowest upwards. As aguahombre said, if you said to declarer "two off since you would pitch the DA on the C9", she'd probably call a doctor to make sure you're still feeling well.

 

Unfortunately while there are many lines that lead to 9 tricks here, we have to be harsh on declarer and so I don't see any other option than one off. :(

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

I can name one reason: everyone and their dog, cat, snake, etc... discards suits from the lowest upwards. As aguahombre said, if you said to declarer "two off since you would pitch the DA on the C9", she'd probably call a doctor to make sure you're still feeling well.

The question is what is a normal line when you think you have all the tricks. In general we don't know, because when you have all the tricks you...claim. However, there is one situation in which you don't claim, you always play it out, and that's when playing against robots. I notice that in that circumstance, when I would like to claim but can't, I pretty much do play cards in a random order while ensuring I don't block suits, and I sometimes discard aces when I know they are superfluous. Does anyone else have any observed data about how players act when they know they have all the tricks but can't claim?

[VixTD]

Actually, he stated a clear enough line of play for me. He said the clubs are high, and he was wrong; but, he focussed on the Clubs. He said nothing about the ace of Diamonds.

He said the clubs were high because he thought that was the only suit worth mentioning. It was presumably obvious that the spades and the ace of diamonds were winners.

 

Do you think the ruling should be any different if declarer had said something like: "I have a surfeit of winners: three each in spades and clubs and the ace of diamonds"?

[aguahombre]

He said the clubs were high because he thought that was the only suit worth mentioning. It was presumably obvious that the spades and the ace of diamonds were winners.

 

Do you think the ruling should be any different if declarer had said something like: "I have a surfeit of winners: three each in spades and clubs and the ace of diamonds"?

I would then give him 3 spades and to lead the club nine. That would put West in to cash his two tricks and surrender to the Diamond Ace. What he thought is beyond my reach or grasp; what he said I can work with. I am not in the punishment business, here. This is not a case of teaching someone how to claim; the guy just made a mistake about the club spots.

 

We are told that the order in which Declarer names his tricks isn't necessarily the order we must rule; but, we also don't have to deliberately distort that order to nail him.

[billw55]

I don't know about most declarers, but as for myself, if I made such a silly error I would accept the stiffest possible penalty without a word of protest, and never dream of trying to lawyer up a trick or two.

[aguahombre]

I don't know about most declarers, but as for myself, if I made such a silly error I would accept the stiffest possible penalty without a word of protest, and never dream of trying to lawyer up a trick or two.

As defender or TD, would you lawyer up the pitch of the Diamond Ace, or approve of requiring Declarer to First Play it --a card he didn't mention? Lawyering up is a manipulation of the Laws at the expense of reason or equity. The Defenders here should be getting two tricks for a total of 4. Anything else is lawyering up.

[billw55]

As defender, would you lawyer up the pitch of the Diamond Ace, or approve of requiring Declarer to First Play it --a card he didn't mention?

I would do the same thing I always do: present facts to director, let her do the thinking, and accept ruling without comment.

 

So I guess the answer is no, I would not try to lawyer anything up. It is director's job to determine possible outcomes and their degree of reasonableness, not mine.

[blackshoe]

Actually, he stated a clear enough line of play for me. He said the clubs are high, and he was wrong; but, he focussed on the Clubs.

"The clubs are high" is not a line of play. It may imply one. Actually, it may imply several. The law does not make allowance for implicit lines.

[mr1303]

I would rule 9 tricks. And not think anything of it. To make players discard aces like this is just wrong IMO

[JLOGIC]

I would rule 9 tricks. And not think anything of it. To make players discard aces like this is just wrong IMO

 

If you rule 8 tricks you are not ruling they discard an ace, you're ruling they pitch a diamond loser on their club "winner"

[campboy]

I would rule -1. You "have" seven winners, so you might try to take any six. If you decide to take one diamond, two spades and three clubs then you're always going one off, and this is consistent with the claim statement. I think wank's line is too implausible, as declarer not only has to make the ♦A his first discard but also has to play in a specific and unnatural order before that (if I was going to take six black suit winners I'd take the spades then the clubs, I wouldn't switch back and forth between them for no reason).

[mr1303]

Ah yes, in which case I agree with down 1. My previous statement still applies for why I wouldn't rule down 2.

[aguahombre]

I would rule -1. You "have" seven winners, so you might try to take any six. If you decide to take one diamond, two spades and three clubs then you're always going one off, and this is consistent with the claim statement.

It is not consistent with the claim statement. He said nothing about the Diamond ACE; he only mentioned dummy's Clubs. I logically conclude he will go to dummy now and will start the clubs at some point. Whenever he does that, there are two tricks for the defense ---making 3.

[helene_t]

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

[RMB1]

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

 

The technical answer is no, because law 12 is not being applied when we rule on a claim. The claim laws talk about awarding tricks not assigning scores.

 

The non-technical answer is that the laws do not want players claiming equity: I claim 9.5 tricks on the two-way finesse.

[aguahombre]

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

I don't know if Australia uses weighted scores. I do know it would reinforce my opinion of them if weight were given to cashing the Diamond Ace or pitching it before going after the tricks Declarer mentioned in his claim.

[campboy]

It is not consistent with the claim statement. He said nothing about the Diamond ACE; he only mentioned dummy's Clubs. I logically conclude he will go to dummy now and will start the clubs at some point. Whenever he does that, there are two tricks for the defense ---making 3.

Well, equally he said nothing about spades. He has not specified, apart from the three clubs, which tricks he intends to win, and he has four winners outside clubs. Diamond, spade, spade, club, club, club seems just as consistent as spade, spade, spade, club, club, club.

[blackshoe]

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

No. Adjudication of a claim is not a score adjustment.

[aguahombre]

Well, equally he said nothing about spades. He has not specified, apart from the three clubs, which tricks he intends to win, and he has four winners outside clubs. Diamond, spade, spade, club, club, club seems just as consistent as spade, spade, spade, club, club, club.

spades are implied as the way to get to dummy to play clubs. The Diamond Ace is not in his claim claim at all. Bringing in the Diamond Ace is a way to punish rather than adjudicate Declarer's mistake, though; what fun.

 

The good news is, however, that you folks found the "obscure losing line" the OP used in his subtitle, and an even more obscure one to go down two.