The Rabbit's Rithmetic

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s75haqjt965dak54c&w=s84hkd96ckqjt7632&n=sakq32h8743dca985&e=sjt96h2dqjt8732c4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=4cpp6hp7hppp]399|300[/hv]

MP pairs.

 

There was an interesting claim ruling at a recent North London Club duplicate. North, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, took his full 10 seconds to pass over 4C, even though West had withdrawn the stop card early, and it seeemed to South, one of the club's weakest members, that North was thinking of bidding. He gambled, quite unethically, with a wild leap to 6♥ and SB decided to add a seventh - after all it could scarcely be worse than a heart hook into the long club suit.

 

West led a top club and RR claimed. His statement was "Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out - and six tricks in the side suits". West protested that the king of hearts was not the only trump out, and the TD was called. SB was quick to guide him. "The rabbit clearly thought he had twelve hearts", he stated. "And even for someone of his class, if you can find someone that bad, to finesse when there is only one out would be irrational". "I don't agree", replied West, "RR might win the club in dummy and lead a heart and when East follows to the first round of hearts with a small one, not the king, RR might reconsider and play the pre-emptor for the shorter hearts and finesse". How would you rule? Most of the other pairs were in 6H=, although a couple had dropped the king of hearts and made 6H+1.

[billw55]

The claim statement is clear on the intent to play the ♥A. Result stands.

[Zelandakh]

The claim is easy - stated line is ♥A followed by 6 side suit winners, which results in 13 tricks. Dealing with the ethical side is another matter but there is no guarantee that that will even come to light.

[lamford]

The claim statement is clear on the intent to play the ♥A. Result stands.

The rabbit did not say that he intended to lead the ♥A. He implied it, sure. "Drawing the trump" breaks down because trump is singular and there are two out. In the US "drawing trump" is used for more than one I believe. When the claim statement breaks down we revert to the worst normal line, so I think the intent to play the ace of hearts is only in order to "draw the trump". Playing devil's advocate for a moment ...

[Manastorm]

Not making. It is not clear how declarer planned to play the hand. A reasonable line is to play a heart towards the ace, however declarer is going to wake up as mentioned and then the finesse must be taken and it fails.

[Trinidad]

The claim statement makes it clear that the Rabbit intends to ruff trick one in hand and not play the ace of clubs. After all, he intends to draw the trump and take "SIX tricks in the side suits". If he plays the ♣A from dummy, it may get ruffed by East and there are only 5 tricks left in the side suits.

 

Conclusion: The claim statement translates to "ruff club in hand with the ♥5, play ♥AQJT96, cash AK, cash ♠AKQ, cash ♣A". 13 tricks.

 

Typical for the rabbit. Karapet, in the West seat, will complain for the rest of his life that RR would have been down on a spade lead. Blame it on the curse of 1392 by the witch of Ararat.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

"the king is the only one out". How do you play that trump suit?

 

Having said that, if you win on the board, and play a heart to the Ace, and the 2 shows up, now what?

 

So the only argument I'm willing to look at is "win this with the Ace" (which is stupid, but not Rabbit Stupid - in fact, I'd say it's Flight B Stupid), "then play a heart, then when the 2 shows that he doesn't in fact have 12 trump, guess to finesse." If you don't believe it's normal* for this player to win trick 1 with the ♣A, given the claim statement, then you can't give them this line.

 

"I'll ruff this, then pull the trump (only the K is out),..." makes 7.

 

The ethics of 6♥ is one that I can't really deal with, given that over here, Stop Card use is ... erratic.

[billw55]

The rabbit did not say that he intended to lead the ♥A. He implied it, sure. "Drawing the trump" breaks down because trump is singular and there are two out. In the US "drawing trump" is used for more than one I believe. When the claim statement breaks down we revert to the worst normal line, so I think the intent to play the ace of hearts is only in order to "draw the trump". Playing devil's advocate for a moment ...

Thinking that only the ♥K is outstanding, the intent to play the ♥A is about as obvious as it gets.

 

If the trump lead comes from dummy, the "worst normal line" certainly includes playing the ♥A anyway, for this class of player. And perhaps for any player - after all, they just failed to count to 13.

[lamford]

Thinking that only the ♥K is outstanding, the intent to play the ♥A is about as obvious as it gets.

 

If the trump lead comes from dummy, the "worst normal line" certainly includes playing the ♥A anyway, for this class of player. And perhaps for any player - after all, they just failed to count to 13.

The worst normal line means the "least successful normal line" and that is clearly to win with the ace of clubs and finesse the heart, waking up when the two appears. And it does not matter if the ace of clubs is ruffed. Correct play of the hand is to try the ace of clubs (even the rabbit knows what to do if that is ruffed small) and to finesse the heart. His statement that he is "drawing the one missing trump" has no validity whatsoever and the rule that says that the TD should resolve the claim as equitably as possible means the rabbit is one down.

 

He made no statement about the order of the play of his cards. He made no statement about where he would (try to) win trick one. So he gets the normal one off.

[lamford]

So the only argument I'm willing to look at is "win this with the Ace" (which is stupid, but not Rabbit Stupid - in fact, I'd say it's Flight B Stupid)

Given that the no-cost play of playing the ♣A is routine for all but Flight C players, I presume you belong to the latter category - sub-Rabbit level?

[lamford]

Conclusion: The claim statement translates to "ruff club in hand with the ♥5, play ♥AQJT96, cash AK, cash ♠AKQ, cash ♣A". 13 tricks.

No, the claim statement does not translate to anything. No order of play of the cards was given and it breaks down when the Rabbit said "draw the trump - there is only one out"

[lamford]

If he plays the ♣A from dummy, it may get ruffed by East and there are only 5 tricks left in the side suits.

Not so; aside from the fact that if East ruffs the ace of clubs, declarer never loses a heart and can claim, he also does have six tricks in the side suits as the last heart will squeeze East in the pointed suits, even if the Rabbit forgets to ruff a diamond in dummy. He will thus make seven hearts, three spades, two diamonds, and an extra card in a pointed suit from the squeeze. Two extra cards in fact, so maybe it should be scored as 7H+1?

[mycroft]

Not so; aside from the fact that if East ruffs the ace of clubs, declarer never loses a heart and can claim, he also does have six tricks in the side suits as the last heart will squeeze East in the pointed suits, even if the Rabbit forgets to ruff a diamond in dummy. He will thus make seven hearts, three spades, two diamonds, and an extra card in a pointed suit from the squeeze. Two extra cards in fact, so maybe it should be scored as 7H+1?

Seriously, you're telling me that someone that would try to win the A here (if he thinks he's got "7 hearts and 6 winners" - yes you caught me) will then manage to pull all the trump but doesn't see that 4 winners and two ruffs is game; will clearly run a(n automatic, okay) squeeze, and having done it, figure out which suit is good?

 

You're right, it's no-lose given the ruffs. But I was focussed on the "6 winners". I'm allowed to be lucky, too :-)

 

Okay, the argument is that since all lines work, that the potential losing line must be followed to provide a decision point; and that the only lie of the hearts that we will give the Rabbit is 1-1 with K onside (Kx with East we play for the drop; this lie, we finesse). I do admit that "pull the only trump and I have 6 winners" leans me to an implication of the winning line; OTOH, I can't see why it should. [Edit: Wait, we are also ruling against the Rabbit when the hearts are 1-1 with K onside when the clubs are 9-4-0-0, aren't we? Club, A, ruff K, overruff, trumps are out, whichever suit West has one of is led, and the second round is ruffed.]

[gszes]

If I had to rule in this situation (ouch) With the club A at trick 1 a superior play ducking and trumping in hand (least rational) and should be chosen so declarer ruffs. Once that happens it becomes irrational to play any more top cards before the stated intent of drawing trump king has been accomplished. That means declarer will have to lay down the heart A

and drop the (as expected) stiff heart K from lho never seeing rho drop a heart. The rabbit nods sagely and runs out the rest of the 13 tricks as claimed. Making 7 and then I walk away wondering why I ever took up this crazy game in the first place:))))

[billw55]

The worst normal line means the "least successful normal line" and that is clearly to win with the ace of clubs and finesse the heart, waking up when the two appears. And it does not matter if the ace of clubs is ruffed. Correct play of the hand is to try the ace of clubs (even the rabbit knows what to do if that is ruffed small) and to finesse the heart. His statement that he is "drawing the one missing trump" has no validity whatsoever and the rule that says that the TD should resolve the claim as equitably as possible means the rabbit is one down.

 

He made no statement about the order of the play of his cards. He made no statement about where he would (try to) win trick one. So he gets the normal one off.

I don't agree. IMO assigning the finesse amounts to enforcing a line of play contrary to his claim statement.

[lamford]

Seriously, you're telling me that someone that would try to win the A here (if he thinks he's got "7 hearts and 6 winners" - yes you caught me) will then manage to pull all the trump but doesn't see that 4 winners and two ruffs is game; will clearly run a(n automatic, okay) squeeze, and having done it, figure out which suit is good?

Even a rabbit might play the ace of clubs in case he has miscounted the trumps, when East ruffs ending all problems. In fact, it is even more important for a rabbit to play the ace of clubs here. That will give East a losing option with Kx of trumps. He doesn't need the squeeze of course, that is just showing off. A simple diamond ruff in dummy will suffice.

[lamford]

With the club A at trick 1 a superior play ducking and trumping in hand (least rational) and should be chosen so declarer ruffs.

You are not supposed to choose the least rational. You are supposed to choose the least successful! That happens to be best play, of playing the ace of clubs and finessing the heart, around 12 to 5 on. He is able to "draw the trump" wherever he wins trick one, so is assumed to win it in dummy as that is clearly best. If best play fails, and the claim was deficient or breaks down, it is quite ridiculous to give the rabbit an inferior but successful line!

 

And it is quite interesting as to whether you punish (adjust, sorry blackshoe) the Rabbit for wrongly concluding that SB was thinking of bidding and jumping wildly to slam. SB always and meticulously takes ten seconds even after (Pass)-1NT-(Pass)-3NT so there was no UI.

[lamford]

[Edit: Wait, we are also ruling against the Rabbit when the hearts are 1-1 with K onside when the clubs are 9-4-0-0, aren't we? Club, A, ruff K, overruff, trumps are out, whichever suit West has one of is led, and the second round is ruffed.]

Indeed, and if West is 3-1-0-9 I think the Rabbit goes off as well, because he will overruff, cash three top spades, notice they are 3-3, and cash a winning spade to throw a diamond loser while West ruffs. Basically we rule against the rabbit whenever there is a "normal" line to go off. Because his claim statement was gobbledygook. If he had claimed silently, I hope you would rule one off. He has been advised to claim silently by SB many times, as he then gets the least successful rational line, and he often does worse than that if he plays it out.

[WellSpyder]

I think I have more sympathy with Lamford's devil's advocacy on this ruling than on many others. If you try too hard to follow a claim line that does not make sense then you risk tying yourself in knots. When the claim statement breaks down (in terms of its linguistic rather than bridge logic) then it seems sensible to revert to how you would rule in the absence of a statement, and in this case that means one down - as it would also mean if RHO had Kx of hearts.

[axman]

Not making. It is not clear how declarer planned to play the hand. A reasonable line is to play a heart towards the ace, however declarer is going to wake up as mentioned and then the finesse must be taken and it fails.

 

Considering what claimer said:

 

"Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..."

 

Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

[RMB1]

When the claim statement breaks down (in terms of its linguistic rather than bridge logic) then it seems sensible to revert to how you would rule in the absence of a statement, ...

 

It is possible to rule that the bridge logic of this claim "break down" when East would play the small trump.

 

Then we might apply the WBFLC minute:

When there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid.

[sanst]

Considering what claimer said:

 

"Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..."

 

Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

For someone who can't even count to 13, it's certainly a very reasonable line of play to take the first trick with the ace, lead a small trump and getting confused the moment E plays the two. Now the Rabbit knows that he has made a mistake and, being not a complete fool, he must decide to finesse or not. W has only five cards in other suits than clubs, E 12. That makes a finesse a far better line of play than to play the hearts 1-1. Besides, weak players usually take a finesse whether necessary or not. So my decision is -1.

You shouldn't accept a line of play that a declarer gives, if it's based on a false assumption, but go for the worst that is normal for the class of player concerned.

If in any way your attention is drawn to the use of UI by S, a PP is in order. If you discover also that SB makes a habit of bidding quickly after the Stop card is removed with a more or less worthless hand, and meticulously waiting 10 secs with a better one, you finally have a valid reason to ban him forever as a cheat.

[gordontd]

It is possible to rule that the bridge logic of this claim "break down" when East would play the small trump.

 

Then we might apply the WBFLC minute:

So, would we be ruling that East's failure to show out is an irregularity? :)

[Manastorm]

Considering what claimer said:

 

"Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..."

 

Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

It is for claimer's benefit that he wakes up at the moment king of ♥ doesn't show up. I am not sure whether I am reminding the obvious or not, but there have been examples where waking up is mandatory when the claim and the facts are in conflict. As far as I understand the only reason for it is claimer's benefit.

[weejonnie]

"and it seeemed to South, one of the club's weakest members, that North was thinking of bidding."

 

"After a jump bid, the next player MUST pause for about ten seconds before calling. It is an offence either not to pause or to show indifference when pausing. If the Stop card has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly. " - EBU Blue Book (2015), which I believe applies in North London (and at the Griffins/ Unicorn)

 

So SB HAS to give the appearance of thinking of bidding.