The Rabbit's Rithmetic

[lamford]

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

In Grattanese, irregularity has more than one meaning. I think the WBFLC minute means that when the claim statement includes a false statement, such as "there is only one trump out", or "I will ruff a diamond in dummy", when the contract is 7NT, then that part of the claim is irregular.

[lamford]

"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.

He maintained his same impassive countenance in the bidding as he has always done, so one could not tell from his demeanour whether he was thinking of bidding.

[lamford]

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.

Where do you get the idea that it is for claimer's benefit? On the contrary, it can be to his disadvantage to wake up, if that is a normal line.

[mycroft]

Heh, IRL (okay, in the Real Mollo Story), RR would win the ♣A and lead a low heart. Seeing East's discard of the ♦2, he'd put up the A, dropping the K. In fact, he'd have miscounted by 2 trumps, but since the side suit winners were right, East's ♥3 falls under the forced ruff in RR's hand. Papa would wonder indignantly how he managed to work out to drop the stiff K, only to be told that 8+3 is 12 - no, wait...

[Manastorm]

Where do you get the idea that it is for claimer's benefit? On the contrary, it can be to his disadvantage to wake up, if that is a normal line.

I consider waking up and what happens consequently separate issues.

[lamford]

I consider waking up and what happens consequently separate issues.

Not relevant. All we have to choose is the worse of the two normal lines for the declarer, whether awake or asleep. The laws do not distinguish between a claimant who is asleep and one who is awake.

[nige1]

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

IMO, the director should impose a rational but unsuccessful line, consistent with the Rabbit's claim statement: win ♣A, lead a ♥ and, when East turns up with a ♥ that is not the expected ♥K, take the losing finesse.

[barmar]

IMO, the director should impose a rational but unsuccessful line, consistent with the Rabbit's claim statement: win ♣A, lead a ♥ and, when East turns up with a ♥ that is not the expected ♥K, take the losing finesse.

At first I thought this was wrong, as it seems wrong that the ruling is based on the actual lie of the cards rather than interpreting claimaint's statement. So if the honors are split he's forced to take the losing finesse, while if East has Kx he's forced to play for the drop.

 

But now it looks like this is pretty much what 70D1 says:

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.

So if we decide that the original statement does not really state whether he's going to finesse or play for the drop, then both of them would be considered normal. And the above says that he's not allowed to refine his statement to include the line that would have been successful, so we impose the unsuccessful line.

[pran]

So if we decide that the original statement does not really state whether he's going to finesse or play for the drop, then both of them would be considered normal. And the above says that he's not allowed to refine his statement to include the line that would have been successful, so we impose the unsuccessful line.

That is precisely the correct understanding of Law 70

[StevenG]

It seems clear to me that his claim statement says he will play the Ace on the first round of trumps.

[pran]

It seems clear to me that his claim statement says he will play the Ace on the first round of trumps.

If he leads from the Ace to the first round of trumps then his claim is good.

 

But if he leads towards the Ace then his claim statement breaks down on discovering that there is another outstanding trump in addition to the King. In that case he is in territory of an incomplete claim statement and should be ruled to select the unfortunate alternative of playing East for both outstanding trumps, i.e. West will win with his single King.

 

And if he claims before showing (stating) whether he will win the first trick in Dummy or in his hand he should be ruled to win with the Ace, resulting in a ruling of down 1.

[lamford]

The TD did rule one down, and indeed he ruled making 7 in the other thread. I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

[ahydra]

I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

 

Your posts are an entertaining way to highlight deficiencies in the wording of the Laws. But while you've certainly shown yourself to be very familiar with the Laws, I don't think one needs to insult other posters in the thread who might not be as well-read on the Laws as yourself, or who disagree with you.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

Your posts are an entertaining way to highlight deficiencies in the wording of the Laws. But while you've certainly shown yourself to be very familiar with the Laws, I don't think one needs to insult other posters in the thread who might not be as well-read on the Laws as yourself, or who disagree with you.

 

ahydra

I apologise. It was intended to be light-hearted.

[billw55]

The TD did rule one down, and indeed he ruled making 7 in the other thread. I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

IMO if that is a correct ruling, it goes a long way to explaining why some players are reluctant to claim.

[barmar]

I thought he was being sarcastic about the EBU Director classes.

[blackshoe]

Again. and again, and again, when you claim, make a clear and complete statement of your intended line of play. No shortcuts. If you don't do that, you have only yourself to blame if the director rules your claim not valid, and thus you are entirely missing the point if you decide you will never claim again. It's not the director who's the bad guy in this scenario, it's you, the claimer.

[Vampyr]

IMO if that is a correct ruling, it goes a long way to explaining why some players are reluctant to claim.

 

It is clearly a correct ruling, but I think that a more frequent reason people are reluctant to claim is that until all of the cards left are clearly winners, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to just play it out. Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.

 

I thought he was being sarcastic about the EBU Director classes.

 

No, Lamford definitely believes that the Club and County director courses are excellent. And I agree with him.

 

Because they are excellent and also fun, most London (and England?) clubs have loads of spare directors around -- which helps the less experienced director and ensures that no one has to direct too often.

[lamford]

It is clearly a correct ruling, but I think that a more frequent reason people are reluctant to claim is that until all of the cards left are clearly winners, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to just play it out. Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.

 

 

 

No, Lamford definitely believes that the Club and County director courses are excellent. And I agree with him.

 

Because they are excellent and also fun, most London (and England?) clubs have loads of spare directors around -- which helps the less experienced director and ensures that no one has to direct too often.

Yes they are are excellent, and they spend their time discussing law rulings, rather than whether people are spectators or players.

[blackshoe]

Also, of course, in MPs you can try to coax an error out of the opponents. I am not sure whether this is ethical, but am inclined to believe that it is.

So am I.

 

Law 73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

Seems close enough.

[blackshoe]

Yes they are are excellent, and they spend their time discussing law rulings, rather than whether people are spectators or players.

I don't understand the point of this comment. After all, you're the one who brought it up.

[barmar]

Seems close enough.

I don't think that law is really necessary in this case. The question is whether playing out in case an opponent makes a mistake counts as trying to "disconcert" them, since the law against delaying says that this is not allowed. But if you're merely "confusing" them ("Hmm, I wonder why he isn't conceding, did I miscount something?"), that's allowed.

 

I have a partner who rarely gives up hoping for an extra trick, even when it's obviously hopeless. She claims when she has the rest of the tricks, but I almost never see her concede when she's run out of tricks.

[lamford]

I don't understand the point of this comment. After all, you're the one who brought it up.

I did not want to deter people from attending because they were worried it would be a linguistics course or they would need a degree in English (or perhaps Mathematics) to understand it.

[StevenG]

How do people rule on an alternate hand where the Rabbit is missing the Queen, not the King? That is, the Rabbit thinks he is missing the Queen only, but is in fact missing Qx, and only the x pops up when he plays the first round of the suit?

[lamford]

How do people rule on an alternate hand where the Rabbit is missing the Queen, not the King? That is, the Rabbit thinks he is missing the Queen only, but is in fact missing Qx, and only the x pops up when he plays the first round of the suit?

If the Rabbit is missing only two hearts, then he will follow his reliable rule on whether to finesse for the queen (ten ever, eleven never). Of course he is applying the rule for when he is missing the king, but it is quite an achievement for him to remember any rule at all. So he will play for the drop, as failure to do so even for the Rabbit would be worse than careless.

 

If he is missing Qxx, then he will be deemed to take a losing first-round finesse, as the superior line of winning a top honour and then entering dummy to take a marked finesse will be way beyond him.

 

Which reminds me of a puzzle from a friend. Holding KJ9xx opposite AT8xx, how do you guarantee no loser if the suit breaks 3-0? There is no opposition bidding, and no inference can be drawn from the opening lead.