Contested Claim

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakhaqdakqjcakq32&w=sjt532h752d7532cj&n=sq4hkjtdt986c7654&e=s9876h98643d4ct98&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2dp2h(hearts%20or%20balanced)p2s(relay)p4n(31-32)p7nppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; Lead J♠; Table Result 7NT?

 

Walter the Walrus rarely plays at the North London club, preferring a nearby club at Walthamstow, and he is unlikely to return after this ruling from a recent night. He had the machinery to show 31-32 balanced, using Kokish and a jump to 4NT. WW always had an obsession with high-card points and he could also have shown 33-34 by jumping to 4NT without Kokish. North had a fairly easy raise to seven, and SB, West, led the jack of spades. WW won with the ace and then cashed the ace of clubs and claimed when all followed. "I think I can manage the remainder", was his claim.

 

SB was on to it like a flash. "You did not specify the order of play of the remaining cards", he started. You breached Law 68C which states: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

 

"I think a careless, but still normal, line of play, is to cash three top diamonds, unblocking the ten, nine and eight, as Allerton's Flash Harry might do. Now you cross to dummy by overtaking the second heart and throw the jack of diamonds on the third heart. Now you cross to hand with the king of spades and only then realise that the clubs have become blocked." SB continued. "I think we can score 7NT-1, can't we, or do you want the TD to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s?" SB asked in his normal boorish manner. The TD was called and was forced to agree with SB that this was a normal line, in that the contract was still making if the club blockage did not exist, and declarer had made no statement to indicate that he had noticed it.

 

"Just one last question", asked SB. "There is a rule that I get a drink for winning the last trick with the seven of diamonds. "Mine is a Hennessey VSOP, please", SB put to WW, but the latter seemed to be reluctant to comply.

 

How would you rule? And should SB get his drink?

[Cyberyeti]

This one is utterly ridiculous, there is no even vaguely normal line that allows SB to win a trick. The line required is not merely careless but beyond insane.

 

In practice everybody cashes A♣ and claims and nobody even thinks about disputing it.

[billw55]

please be serious

[broze]

You mean law 68C, not 69C.

 

And I agree with cyber. I appreciate these are hypotheticals and that no director in the world would rule for SB here but the suggested line by SB is not remotely normal. Even if declarer got into trouble with his blocked clubs he would be pitching a club on the third heart not a diamond.

[lamford]

This one is utterly ridiculous, there is no even vaguely normal line that allows SB to win a trick. The line required is not merely careless but beyond insane.

 

In practice everybody cashes A♣ and claims and nobody even thinks about disputing it.

I hope you would rule one down if the jack of diamonds and seven of diamonds were transposed. Now it is clearly normal to cash three diamonds, two spades and three hearts and then ... oops. Or if the four and three of clubs were transposed, the line of setting up the seven of diamonds for the opponents would still be 100% and therefore normal, and I would allow the claim if declarer had kept the three of clubs in dummy. Any 100% line must be normal. The declarer had clearly not noticed the club blockage and should be punished for it. The line specified by SB is just "flashy" but still normal. If you have 13 tricks there is no point trying to make 14.

 

And, in answer to broze, declarer thinking that the clubs now provide 5 tricks can play any cards that still give him the remainder.

 

And, FWIW, if the ten and seven of diamonds were transposed, I would still rule one off. All that is needed then is to discard one "winner" instead of another "winner".

[broze]

And, in answer to broze, declarer thinking that the clubs now provide 5 tricks can play any cards that still give him the remainder.

 

I think you are mistakenly using your own-brand definiton of normal. You say that "any 100% line must be normal" (or rather any line that declarer would think is 100%) but I don't agree to this. "Normal" should have its usual meaning except that (70D2) it "includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved".

 

Realistically no one would say that SB's suggested line is "normal" and imo it is more than merely careless or inferior to go down in the manner stipulated by SB.

 

That said the wording of the footnote to 70D2 is just terribly phrased.

[Cyberyeti]

The normal line is to count 14 tricks and cash the clubs first, there is no problem.

 

However if you cash 2 diamonds and see a discard, you never discard dummy's remaining high diamond so survive that way.

 

On your amended hand, a microsecond's thought when you find the diamonds fail to split would reveal you have to play clubs next and in practice nobody ever cashes the spades or hearts before the clubs.

[barmar]

This seems like the opposite of "careless". All that unblocking and overtaking typically requires great care. And anyone doing that much analysis would surely realize that it's unnecessary. Why would someone unblock just so they can discard a winner?

 

The only thing that matters on this hand is the club layout. Surely any line of play that doesn't start with testing clubs is crazy.

[WellSpyder]

Declarer did well here and counted his tricks! Realising that he needed 4 club tricks, he didn't claim until both opponents followed to the first round of clubs. Why should we assume that he thought he needed 5 club tricks?

[lamford]

The normal line is to count 14 tricks and cash the clubs first, there is no problem.

 

However if you cash 2 diamonds and see a discard, you never discard dummy's remaining high diamond so survive that way.

 

On your amended hand, a microsecond's thought when you find the diamonds fail to split would reveal you have to play clubs next and in practice nobody ever cashes the spades or hearts before the clubs.

I agree that nobody cashes the spades or hearts before clubs in practice. In which case what is the purpose of Law 68C requiring declarer to state the order in which he plays his cards? If one thinks one has five club tricks then one might play those as the last five and not bother cashing the third heart. When you think you have 14 winners, you have to discard one of them. I, and others I have observed, have deliberately discarded aces from dummy when not needing them. One day I will come a cropper.

[lamford]

Declarer did well here and counted his tricks! Realising that he needed 4 club tricks, he didn't claim until both opponents followed to the first round of clubs. Why should we assume that he thought he needed 5 club tricks?

All declarer realised was that he would fail if clubs were 4-0. The Walrus only ever counts his points, not his tricks ...

[lamford]

This seems like the opposite of "careless". All that unblocking and overtaking typically requires great care. And anyone doing that much analysis would surely realize that it's unnecessary. Why would someone unblock just so they can discard a winner?

 

The only thing that matters on this hand is the club layout. Surely any line of play that doesn't start with testing clubs is crazy.

The declarer did test the clubs. I know he did not see the potential blockage. You know he did not see the blockage. The world-class declarer who was deemed to go off for the same reason in a top event was deemed not to have noticed the blockage. That caused a furore on bridgewinners, with the players thinking it was unfair and all the TDs thinking it was, er, "normal". Declarer is given the worst "normal" line. That is surely the one that would be 100% if the clubs were not blocked, but fails because they are. SB is therefore correct.

[barmar]

I enjoy any good "claim is problematic because the key suit is blocked" problem as much as the next guy. But these should involve a hand where there are communication problems, and you have to time things very carefully to prevent it. But this is not an example of it. This supposedly "normal" play is more like declarer going out of his way to set up a trick for the opponents.

 

Is SB really suggesting that declarer might "carelessly" forget that the ♦T is a winner, which is why he discards it?

 

Or he just might not notice the club blockage, so thinks it doesn't matter, and he's just trying to show off his "clever" technique and gets hoist on his own petard? I don't think that's what "I can manage the rest" means when there's no real problem. I've used that phrase myself, and heard it from others, and it always means that I'm just going to take all the obvious tricks -- nothing fancy is needed.

[lamford]

That said the wording of the footnote to 70D2 this Law is just terribly phrased.

I agree. But you did not go far enough.

[lamford]

I enjoy any good "claim is problematic because the key suit is blocked" problem as much as the next guy. But these should involve a hand where there are communication problems, and you have to time things very carefully to prevent it. But this is not an example of it. This supposedly "normal" play is more like declarer going out of his way to set up a trick for the opponents.

 

Is SB really suggesting that declarer might "carelessly" forget that the ♦T is a winner, which is why he discards it?

 

Or he just might not notice the club blockage, so thinks it doesn't matter, and he's just trying to show off his "clever" technique and gets hoist on his own petard? I don't think that's what "I can manage the rest" means when there's no real problem. I've used that phrase myself, and heard it from others, and it always means that I'm just going to take all the obvious tricks -- nothing fancy is needed.

I don't think there is any requirement for one to have be very careful to disallow the claim. Just a requirement to be careful. And here one can take "14 tricks" by unblocking the clubs first, so one has to discard a winner. Why should it be a club rather than a top diamond? And why does it matter which diamonds dummy plays on the top diamonds. Declarer might well say "any" when leading the ace, king and queen of diamonds. We all would think that leading them and calling for any card from dummy is normal. We would all think that then playing three rounds of hearts and discarding a winner (after all they are all winners) is normal. At this point, discarding a spade and then playing the queen of spades discarding a diamond also fails. This is a routine one off. Declarer made an error, and should be punished for it.

 

If you don't think SB's line is "normal", which particular play in his line is worse than careless?

[blackshoe]

Declarer made an error, and should be punished for it.

Score adjustment is not punishment. OTOH... does anyone else but me think SB should get his drink thrown in his face? After all, he is a boor, and should be punished for it.

[lamford]

Score adjustment is not punishment. OTOH... does anyone else but me think SB should get his drink thrown in his face? After all, he is a boor, and should be punished for it.

I think he should be rectified ...

[richlp]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakhaqdakqjcakq32&w=sjt532h752d7532cj&n=sq4hkjtdt986c7654&e=s9876h98643d4ct98&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2dp2h(hearts%20or%20balanced)p2s(relay)p4n(31-32)p7nppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; Lead J♠; Table Result 7NT?

 

Walter the Walrus rarely plays at the North London club, preferring a nearby club at Walthamstow, and he is unlikely to return after this ruling from a recent night. He had the machinery to show 31-32 balanced, using Kokish and a jump to 4NT. WW always had an obsession with high-card points and he could also have shown 33-34 by jumping to 4NT without Kokish. North had a fairly easy raise to seven, and SB, West, led the jack of spades. WW won with the ace and then cashed the ace of clubs and claimed when all followed. "I think I can manage the remainder", was his claim.

 

SB was on to it like a flash. "You did not specify the order of play of the remaining cards", he started. You breached Law 68C which states: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

 

"I think a careless, but still normal, line of play, is to cash three top diamonds, unblocking the ten, nine and eight, as Allerton's Flash Harry might do. Now you cross to dummy by overtaking the second heart and throw the jack of diamonds on the third heart. Now you cross to hand with the king of spades and only then realise that the clubs have become blocked." SB continued. "I think we can score 7NT-1, can't we, or do you want the TD to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s?" SB asked in his normal boorish manner. The TD was called and was forced to agree with SB that this was a normal line, in that the contract was still making if the club blockage did not exist, and declarer had made no statement to indicate that he had noticed it.

 

"Just one last question", asked SB. "There is a rule that I get a drink for winning the last trick with the seven of diamonds. "Mine is a Hennessey VSOP, please", SB put to WW, but the latter seemed to be reluctant to comply.

 

How would you rule? And should SB get his drink?

On a recent BBO hand, partner opened and passed my 1H response with 14 HCP and 3 card support. With 11 tricks on top I justified his judgement by making one exactly (nice pass pard, can't make game). Am I supposed to play like that here??????

[TylerE]

7NT making, and SB has to buy a round for the table to apologize for wasting everyone's time with this prattle.

[billw55]

The declarer did test the clubs. I know he did not see the potential blockage. You know he did not see the blockage. The world-class declarer who was deemed to go off for the same reason in a top event was deemed not to have noticed the blockage. That caused a furore on bridgewinners, with the players thinking it was unfair and all the TDs thinking it was, er, "normal". Declarer is given the worst "normal" line. That is surely the one that would be 100% if the clubs were not blocked, but fails because they are. SB is therefore correct.

This was a real hand? At a top event? If so I'd love to know who the defender was that challenged this claim.

[eagles123]

Cyber nailed this imo, whilst I enjoy your SB ruling topics, this one is just beyond ridiculous.

[sanst]

"Just one last question", asked SB. "There is a rule that I get a drink for winning the last trick with the seven of diamonds. "Mine is a Hennessey VSOP, please", SB put to WW, but the latter seemed to be reluctant to comply.

 

How would you rule? And should SB get his drink?

Even that he got wrong. It's the beer card.I'll have the Hennesey.

[gordontd]

If you don't think SB's line is "normal", which particular play in his line is worse than careless?

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

 

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

[broze]

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

 

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

 

Absolutely. Lamford's comment is a non-sequitur. It's really pretty simple I think - see my comment above. Is the line proposed by SB normal? No - not by any definition of normal.

[lamford]

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

 

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

You would be right if the line proposed by SB required "care". It does not. Let us surmise that it was played out for a moment. Declarer is asked to play it out and wrongly does so. He cashes the ace, king and queen of diamonds and calls for "any" from dummy, still making the contract of course. Dummy plays the highest diamonds and the opponents do not object. Now declarer cashes three rounds of hearts. He thinks he has more winners than he needs so discards one of them. At this point, only a "careful" small club suffices. A "careless" top spade (followed by a "careless" spade discarding a diamond) or careless top diamond both fail.

 

There is nothing in the plan posited by SB which requires declarer to be "careful". Au contraire, declarer needs to either "carefully" specify "small" when he cashes top diamonds, or "carefully" notice that the clubs are blocked.

 

The only relevant part of this ruling is whether you think the line of cashing three top diamonds and not specifying "small" on them is worse than careless. I think it is just that. "Careless". Within the meaning of the Act, m'lud.