Claim of 13 Tricks after opening lead

[PhilG007]

An admittedly beginner player failed to see that there are 13 tricks available without taking a finesse. That is understandable.

 

For anyone who is not a beginner to not be able to see it, is hard to understand. Phil, do you really fail to see that 13 tricks are trivially available on these cards without taking a finesse?

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps

so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without

specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would

have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.

It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he

made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not

mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly

enforced.

[PhilG007]

Pointing out that there are laws that govern claims is hardly going the extra mile to provide the "basis of challenge".

 

You can imagine the conversation at the table:

 

Declarer: "I claim the rest"

Defender: "I object!"

Declarer: "On what basis?"

Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"

Declarer: "Oh god, how could I have been so remiss? Of course I concede"

 

When interpreting these laws the director is required to assume that, where a line is unstated, declarer may make an inferior line but not one that is irrational. He is also required to consider, when there is an outstanding trump, whether it is at all likely that declarer was unaware.

 

So to challenge the claim you would need to establish that taking a Diamond finesse would, for that class of player, be a rational play given that he has 13 on top.

The conversation you quoted wouldn't happen in real life When declarer made his"I claim the rest" a sensible defender would not

risk a confrontation with declarer but immediately call the TD and only then in the Director's presence state his reasons for disputing

declarer's claim.I actually saw this happen in real life as a witness.

[1eyedjack]

Law 70C 2 expressly requires the director to make a judgement over whether, absent pulling trumps, the declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trump. He might judge either way, and if he judges that it is "at all likely" that he was unaware, then he gets punished accordingly. But the laws do at least provide for the possibility that declarer was *not* (in the judgemnt of the director) "at all likely" to have miscounted trumps. Not stating that he would draw trumps is one factor that the director might take into account in considering it likely that he had forgotten.

 

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

 

If the director concludes that it was not at all likely that declarer was unaware of outstanding trumps, then whether or not his unstated line includes drawing trumps is all down to the fall-back test of whether he would be playing "irrationally" as opposed to simply "careless or inferior line".

 

I have no objection to pedantry, when property applied.

 

Your objection to the hypothetical conversation is specious. It is trivial to accommodate your objections by minor tweaking, without loss of the point being made:

 

Declarer: "I claim the rest"

Defender: "I object! DIRECTOR!""

Director: "On what basis?"

Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"

Director: "So be it. No need to look it up. Guilty as charged".

[sfi]

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

 

Absolutely. If anyone who has demonstrated the basic ability to count to 13 shows the hand at trick 1 and claims without a line of play, there will be no argument at any serious tournament. I'm not sure who Hurd was playing, but I can't imagine a detailed claim statement was made on this hand - and probably nothing was said at all. There are 13 tricks, and it's obvious what his line of play would be.

 

Calling the director, unless you are a genuine beginner, would just get you laughed at.

[eagles123]

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps

so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without

specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would

have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.

It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he

made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not

mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly

enforced.

 

yeah I'm sure an international standard player would forget to pull trumps on this kind of hand :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ArtK78]

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps

so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without

specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would

have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.

It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he

made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not

mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly

enforced.

First of all, how do you know that he did not say "pulling trumps" when he made the claim?

 

Second, this was not Ma and Pa Kettle at the local club. This was the USBC Team Trials. No one at this level would forget to pull trump, and no one at this level would imply that declarer would fail to pull trump.

 

Your post is a waste of digital ink.

[PhilG007]

First of all, how do you know that he did not say "pulling trumps" when he made the claim?

 

Second, this was not Ma and Pa Kettle at the local club. This was the USBC Team Trials. No one at this level would forget to pull trump, and no one at this level would imply that declarer would fail to pull trump.

 

Your post is a waste of digital ink.

It doesn't matter whether the event was a club night or an event at the highest level,

amnesia is no respecter of status It can,and does,affect everyone.

[PhilG007]

yeah I'm sure an international standard player would forget to pull trumps on this kind of hand :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Stranger things have happened (!) You forget that bridge players,like anyone else are frail mortals(!) <_<

[masse24]

If you are a believer in the old adage of "the queen lying over the jack" then the two way

finesse has become one way and you shouldn't have any further problems.

 

So . . . you're saying you believe the finesse to be the best route to all 13 tricks?

[PhilG007]

Law 70C 2 expressly requires the director to make a judgement over whether, absent pulling trumps, the declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trump. He might judge either way, and if he judges that it is "at all likely" that he was unaware, then he gets punished accordingly. But the laws do at least provide for the possibility that declarer was *not* (in the judgemnt of the director) "at all likely" to have miscounted trumps. Not stating that he would draw trumps is one factor that the director might take into account in considering it likely that he had forgotten.

 

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

 

If the director concludes that it was not at all likely that declarer was unaware of outstanding trumps, then whether or not his unstated line includes drawing trumps is all down to the fall-back test of whether he would be playing "irrationally" as opposed to simply "careless or inferior line".

 

I have no objection to pedantry, when property applied.

 

Your objection to the hypothetical conversation is specious. It is trivial to accommodate your objections by minor tweaking, without loss of the point being made:

 

Declarer: "I claim the rest"

Defender: "I object! DIRECTOR!""

Director: "On what basis?"

Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"

Director: "So be it. No need to look it up. Guilty as charged".

Again,this dialogue is also hypothetical. Unless a TD has a photographic memory to remember the

whole codex of the Laws from beginning to end,he would have to look up the relevant Law and

read it to the players whilst standing at the table.

I have seen plenty of objections in my time as a player and they just don't follow the format

you've given in your post.

[PhilG007]

So . . . you're saying you believe the finesse to be the best route to all 13 tricks?

No

[masse24]

No

Then why mention it? You only confuse the issue.

[PhilG007]

Then why mention it? You only confuse the issue.

Am I not allowed to state a fact?

[Zelandakh]

Am I not allowed to state a fact?

What you stated was an adage and not a fact. And it is not at all relevant to the discussion at hand as even the slightest perusal of the laws would confirm.

[PhilG007]

What you stated was an adage and not a fact. And it is not at all relevant to the discussion at hand as even the slightest perusal of the laws would confirm.

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?) :(

[neilkaz]

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?) :(

 

Laws...Schmaws! With all due respect, PhilG, as you earned some by playing a few challenges, I fear you are drifting back into Troll Mode again! Have you ever watched the team trials here in the USA or in the UK from behind the screens? I kibb'ed live a couple times here as the US trials are often near Chicago as I have friends playing who let me watch. Players on both sides of the table of Hurd's ability make OBVIOUS claims like this all time and they aren't disputed. Everyone at that level knows that trump will be drawn in one or two rounds and the ♦ will be pitched on the K♠ and then there remain enough trumps in both hands to ruff any losers. They can see this as quickly as one can tie his shoes.

 

If I make a claim like this in the sectional here tomorrow it might be disputed. If declaring I'd bang down a top trump first and if both follow I'd claim stating that I am pitching a ♦ and don't need the hook, and that I can then cross ruff. If trump split 2-0 I bang down another top ♣ and make the same claim. But lets say, I simply spread my hand and claimed and some opp disputed as is their right, and they call the director. She'll ask me to explain my line of play and agree that I have 13 tricks once she looks at it a bit.

 

As for laws, yes, of course they matter. But they don't matter in a practical sense at the W/C level because no one is going to dispute this claim and if some one does, the claim will certainly be allowed.

 

As for the OP he stated in his initial post that he was a beginner. Obviously, he missed the fact that a ♦ can be pitched. A couple respondents told the OP this and this is where this thread should've come to a quick end. I hope my post will have brought this thread to its ending.

 

A shame to watch so many threads here lately deteriorate into nonsense and often drawn out by trollish behavior into dozens of unnecessary additional posts. ... neilkaz ...

[ArtK78]

Its not even a question of pitching a diamond. It is just a question of cashing 13 tricks.

 

6 clubs in hand (West), 3 heart ruffs in dummy (East), and the AK's in each of the pointed suits. Obviously, trump has to be pulled first. There is plenty of communication to accomplish this.

 

The OP says that West was the declarer, so that is how I presented it.

[neilkaz]

Its not even a question of pitching a diamond. It is just a question of cashing 13 tricks.

 

6 clubs in dummy, 3 heart ruffs in hand, and the AK's in each of the pointed suits. Obviously, trump has to be pulled first.

 

Yes true. I'm just replying to mention that often when I've had claims disputed I've claimed all winners. There's 8 cards remaining and I have 8 tops and I still am asked where my losers are going. I try not to make overly fancy claims and prefer not to claim on the basis of a marked finesse and heaven's no, I won't claim on a squeeze. The claim is supposed to speed up play.

[Zelandakh]

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?) :(

Yes I can read:

If you are a believer in the old adage of "the queen lying over the jack" then the two way

finesse has become one way and you shouldn't have any further problems.

 

Obviously so can masse24 as he posted the same quote in the post that started this sub-thread (#34).

[1eyedjack]

Again,this dialogue is also hypothetical.

Agreed. Deliberately so, as stated.

 

I have seen plenty of objections in my time as a player and they just don't follow the format

you've given in your post.

Precisely my point, which is:

 

That conversation would be the logical consequence of a claim contested on the grounds which *you* stated. The absurdity of the prospect of that conversation illustrates the flaw in the underlying premise, which is to say the suggested grounds for contesting it. Certainly the conversation would never take place, and the reason that it would never take place is that no-one asked to provide the basis of a challenge would propose "Law 70/71. End of."

 

The simple fact of the matter is that those laws contain within them a number of provisions, some of which, if they are judged to apply, would support the claim, and some would support the contest to the claim. The director would be required to form a judgement as to which sub-provisions take priority in light of the facts of the individual case, as he determines them.

 

Everyone on this thread apart from you is of the opinion that it would be absurd to the point of irrational for an experienced player to fail to take 13 tricks. Furthermore, declarer would absolutely not be required to lose a trump trick simply due to failure to state that he would draw trumps. On another hand, maybe.

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9742hkjt765d74c4&w=sth932dat5ct86532&n=sqj65haq84dq986c7&e=sak83hdkj32cakqj9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p6cppp&p=ha]399|300[/hv]

I think there is something in the Laws about when declarer makes a claim without

a statement of play. I think the defenders should challenge and call the TD

I would certainly call the TD. The opening 6C bid shows possible unauthorised information from another source, such as the hand records, and the failure to raise to 7 on the East hand looks suspicious too.

[Finch]

Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not

mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly

enforced.

 

The laws are enforced, that is absolutely true.

However, your first sentence quoted is not true. There is nothing saying that decalrer is 'not permitted' to draw trumps.

[mikestar13]

I would certainly call the TD. The opening 6C bid shows possible unauthorised information from another source, such as the hand records, and the failure to raise to 7 on the East hand looks suspicious too.

 

Original poster (Frager) did not give the bidding, just the final contract. When 1eyedjack constructed a readable diagram for him, he gave the final contact as the opening bid rather than guess the bidding sequence, which was irrelevant to the claim in any case. I assume a more normal sequence would have happened at the table.

[Vampyr]

Original poster (Frager) did not give the bidding, just the final contract. When 1eyedjack constructed a readable diagram for him, he gave the final contact as the opening bid rather than guess the bidding sequence, which was irrelevant to the claim in any case. I assume a more normal sequence would have happened at the table.

 

LOL lighten up!

[661_Pete]

LOL lighten up!

Joking aside (and I can see the joke!) .....

 

I got marginally involved in a hand here on BBO where some highly suspicious bidding involving a monster jump, DID occur. This was a little while ago.

 

Holding:

[hv=pc=n&w=skjhktdkj63cak765&e=sat72haq972da9cj2]266|100[/hv]

East opened 1♥ and West jumped immediately to 7NT - which made. This really happened - it was there in the records...

 

How did I find out about this? Well, I'd played the same hand myself at another table - and after making what I thought was a 'good' 6NT (via a more conventional route), and felt a bit disappointed at the IMPs score, I thought I'd just take a look at the traveller.

 

If that had happened in a tournament, would anyone have called the TD? Surely! I sent an E-mail to abuse@bridgebase.com over this hand, but didn't hear any more about it.