Careless or beyond?

[campboy]

So, if West had a club instead of on of his hearts, you would disallow the claim because one of the tricks had to be won by the king of diamonds, and therefore dummy is not high? The correct procedure with all claims is to give the claimer the worst line that is careless. Here that is not to discard the king of diamonds. If West had a club, it would be worse than careless not to play a diamond before using both entries.

No, the correct procedure with all claims is to give the worst non-careless line that is consistent with the claim statement, if any. If there are no lines consistent with the claim statement, then and only then do you give the worst of all non-careless lines.

 

If West had had a club instead of one of his hearts, and the same statement had been made, then it would break down immediately on a red-suit return, since it would be impossible to win both small diamonds. So we have to fall back on the worst of all non-careless lines; since as you say it would be worse than careless to fail to make all the tricks now, we still allow him to do so.

[lamford]

No, the correct procedure with all claims is to give the worst non-careless line that is consistent with the claim statement, if any. If there are no lines consistent with the claim statement, then and only then do you give the worst of all non-careless lines.

 

If West had had a club instead of one of his hearts, and the same statement had been made, then it would break down immediately on a red-suit return, since it would be impossible to win both small diamonds. So we have to fall back on the worst of all non-careless lines; since as you say it would be worse than careless to fail to make all the tricks now, we still allow him to do so.

Then the correct claim statement should be "Dummy will become high if I discard my king of diamonds on a high club". The statement "Dummy is high" breaks down immediately, because, at the time of the claim, dummy is not high. "Dummy is high" means that dummy can win all the remaining tricks regardless of what any of the other THREE hands play. Therefore you disallow a claim, as there is a careless line, leading all dummy's cards in any order including careless orders, which fails. "Dummy is high" is not an indication, implied or otherwise, that declarer has noticed the blockage, and anyone who thinks that is somewhere between East Ham and Upney.

[gnasher]

The actual effect of telling a good player that he is deemed to play like a moron is that he won't claim again and the game will slow down even further.

If so, he is a moron. All he has to do is claim like a good player, rather than like a moron.

[barmar]

The actual effect of telling a good player that he is deemed to play like a moron is that he won't claim again and the game will slow down even further.

I doubt it. Habits are hard to break. At least 95% of claims are so simple and clear that it's hard not to claim if you're a decent player.

 

I'm not one of those players who asks partner "No spades?" when he discards. For a while, every time my partner revoked, he would ask me at the end of the hand to start doing that (he's an asker). But I just couldn't get into the habit of it. Luckily, he doesn't revoke often.

[jallerton]

If so, he is a moron. All he has to do is claim like a good player, rather than like a moron.

 

What do you mean by "claim like a good player"? You and I know some good players whose method of claiming involves putting their hand back in the board without showing it. When challenged about this procedure, their answer is something like: "Everyone knows the hand, don't they?"

[lamford]

What do you mean by "claim like a good player". You and I know some good players whose method of claiming involves putting their hand back in the board without showing it. When challenged about this procedure, their answer is something like: "Everyone knows the hand, don't they?"

Maybe gnasher was using "good" in the sense of "law-abiding".

[Cyberyeti]

If so, he is a moron. All he has to do is claim like a good player, rather than like a moron.

 

It is blindingly obvious that here declarer would get the 3 card ending correct if he played it out, he may consider it so obvious that he hasn't even mentioned it. I would feel majorly insulted if a director told me I was not deemed to have discarded K♦ as that implied he thought I played bridge like an imbecile so failing to unblock was merely careless rather than much worse than that.

[WellSpyder]

I would feel majorly insulted if a director told me I was not deemed to have discarded K♦ as that implied he thought I played bridge like an imbecile so failing to unblock was merely careless rather than much worse than that.

OK. So you would feel insulted if the TD ruled against you. Meanwhile the oppo will feel you have cheated them if you rely on a play that you didn't mention in your claim. So someone is bound to be very unhappy.

 

Isn't life so much more pleasant if people simply mention when claiming how they intend to play the hand?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat95dc&w=shj76dkc&n=shkq8dcj&e=sahd85cq]300|300|This was from the A Final of the Pairs at last weekend's EBU Seniors Congress. West is in 4♠ and South is on lead. West says "Dummy is high".Dummy will ruff the heart return. Do we allow declarer to unblock ♦K on ♣Q next? The Strength of Field is about 60%, for those familiar with the NGS.I thought this was close but favoured one solution over the other. Both my colleagues thought as I did, one of whom thought it also worth posting, so how think the IBLF panel? [/hv]

In his claim, declarer should have mentioned the ♦K unblock. Notwitstanding, he did say "dummy is high" which imples that dummy takes the remaining tricks. So, IMO, this is a close matter of judgement.

 

Such ruling anomalies (and there are several more on Bridgewinners) are not the fault of directors but of unnecessarily woolly, complex, and sophisticated rules.

[pran]

In his claim, declarer should have mentioned the ♦K unblock. Notwitstanding, he did say "dummy is high" which imples that dummy takes the remaining tricks. So, IMO, this is a close matter of judgement.

 

Such ruling anomalies (and there are several more on Bridgewinners) are not the fault of directors but of unnecessarily woolly, complex, and sophisticated rules.

So long as we allow claims such situations are bound to come up, and we need laws to specify what to accept and what not to accept from the claimer. IMHO the only way it is possible to change the laws for the better (???) is to ban all claims, a change that obviously is out of question.

 

The statement "dummy is high" is itself no guarantee that the claimer observes the need to discard his ♦K in time. However the situation here is so transparent that I would normally accept the claim.

[Pig Trader]

Thanks, everyone.

 

As I said in the OP, I thought it was close, as did two of my colleagues, but we were all minded, but only just, to allow the claim.

 

I agree with Pran that the Laws on contested claims are as good as they can possibly be.

 

A further question did occur to me, and that is: suppose the declarer had instead said "The rest are mine (whatever you lead)"? Would this have made you more inclined or less inclined to acccept the claim?

[barmar]

A further question did occur to me, and that is: suppose the declarer had instead said "The rest are mine (whatever you lead)"? Would this have made you more inclined or less inclined to acccept the claim?

I think that's a little better, since it doesn't actually contradict the layout of the cards (dummy isn't high at the time of the claim, it will become high after unblocking), although it still doesn't suggest that declarer has recognized the communication problems.

 

In the end, I'm likely to adjudicate either of these claims based on my estimate of the expertise of the player. A champion bridge player would get it right, a life novice probably wouldn't. On the other hand, I'd also expect the expert to make mention of the blockage, although when experts are playing against other experts they often don't bother, since they all know that they all can see it.

[blackshoe]

In his claim, declarer should have mentioned the ♦K unblock. Notwitstanding, he did say "dummy is high" which imples that dummy takes the remaining tricks. So, IMO, this is a close matter of judgement.

 

Such ruling anomalies (and there are several more on Bridgewinners) are not the fault of directors but of unnecessarily woolly, complex, and sophisticated rules.

The is nothing woolly about the requirement to state a line of play. Things become woolly when players ignore their obligations under the law.

[wank]

" .... if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent .... "

 

While always something to be wary of, it wasn't an issue here. I'd have said if it was. :rolleyes:

 

too many people on here love trying to invent their own facts so they can demonstrate their brilliance by giving a different ruling.

[VixTD]

A further question did occur to me, and that is: suppose the declarer had instead said "The rest are mine (whatever you lead)"? Would this have made you more inclined or less inclined to acccept the claim?

Or if they'd said "taking the rest of the tricks in the dummy"?

 

I think the discarding of the ♦K is such a key part of the play that it has to be mentioned in the claim statement. I wouldn't have allowed the claim.

[mink]

Discarding the ♦K is a no-brainer for any decent player provided that he is aware that of King still being present in his hand. The claim statement suggests he is not aware of that. The reason might be that he had planned the discard of the K long ago and being mentally ahead thinks it has been already done. And as the dummy is high there is no need to really look in the hand and realize the K is still there. Even if he does look, maybe the King is hidden behind some other card.

 

So not allowing the claim does not mean that the TD thinks that declarer is a bad bridge player, but on the contrary the TD assumes declarer is a good player who would certainly state the unblocking if he was aware of the King.

 

Karl

[barmar]

So not allowing the claim does not mean that the TD thinks that declarer is a bad bridge player, but on the contrary the TD assumes declarer is a good player who would certainly state the unblocking if he was aware of the King.

Indeed -- not noticing that the ♦K is still there and blocking the suit is the kind of thing that falls under "careless", not "irrational".

 

These types of errors are more likely when the relevant card was in a defender's hand, not visible to everyone in dummy, but players do have mental lapses like this.

[nige1]

I don't think anyone who has failed to mention a blockage can be assumed to notice it in time and recover from it. The failure to mention it is evidence of a mental block in noticing it.

So long as we allow claims such situations are bound to come up, and we need laws to specify what to accept and what not to accept from the claimer. IMHO the only way it is possible to change the laws for the better (???) is to ban all claims, a change that obviously is out of question.The statement "dummy is high" is itself no guarantee that the claimer observes the need to discard his ♦K in time. However the situation here is so transparent that I would normally accept the claim.

The is nothing woolly about the requirement to state a line of play. Things become woolly when players ignore their obligations under the law.

Current law is woolly in its attempts to cater for claims that aren't comprehensive e.g. the OP case. Even in the simplest cases, different directors interpret it differently e.g. gordontd and pran. Current law also discourages claims when the claimer is a foreigner or finds it hard to express himself succinctly. IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

[barmar]

IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

The problem with this is that the simple act of objecting to the claim alerts declarer to the problem, and he's likely to work it out when playing out the hand. The defenders do get the benefit of playing double dummy, but that may not be enough to save them.

 

The rubber bridge protocol exists out of necessity -- there's generally no director available to adjudicate.

[blackshoe]

Current law is woolly in its attempts to cater for claims that aren't comprehensive e.g. the OP case. Even in the simplest cases, different directors interpret it differently e.g. gordontd and pran. Current law also discourages claims when the claimer is a foreigner or finds it hard to express himself succinctly. IMO much simpler and better would be the protocol often used at Rubber bridge and on-line

In several places the Law attempts to "cater" for players who frequently break the law. That's not woolly.

 

The rubber bridge protocol exists out of necessity -- there's generally no director available to adjudicate.

IIRC, when there is an arbiter (equivalent of the director) available at rubber bridge, the protocol is the same as at duplicate.