Challenged Claim

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak9ht864dcakj953&w=s74hq93dqt5ct7642&n=sq83hakj5dak76cq8&e=sjt652h72dj98432c]399|300[/hv]

 

S plays 7 NT

Lead = ♣4

 

South claims without any explanation. EW calls TD.

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !! (not sure if that is relevant )Is this illogical play or careless play? (in reality it is both imo)

What should TD do at this table?

 

Thanks in adv.

[eagles123]

i rule down, if declarer is careless enough to claim at trick one with no statement, surely they're also careless enough to miscount clubs

[sfi]

There are 13 top tricks on a club lead, and the claim suggests declarer noticed that. 7NT=.

[Cyberyeti]

This sort of thing is what destroys the pace of play by discouraging people from claiming, yes you should play the 8 from dummy before claiming, but saying effectively "I have 13 top tricks" which is totally true should be enough, there are no entry issues, 13 winners and 13 tricks. Even if you do play the Q♣ you still make 13 by way of the normal heart finesse.

 

Particularly saying this to a decent player is insulting their intelligence, I wouldn't have the gall to say anything to anybody who can follow suit.

[FelicityR]

Tournament Directors have better things to do than to be called to a table where the lead has automatically guaranteed the contract. What happens at the other table is irrelevant. If I were either East or West I would feel absolutely foolish to call the TD to the table except if I was playing against completely rank novices.

[blackshoe]

Q: How do we get players to state a line of play when they claim?

A: Rule against them when they fail to state a line of play and there is a line which fails.

 

Now, if we don't care whether players state a line of play when they claim, what the heck, just let the claim stand unless there's no possibility it makes. But that's not what the rules say to do.

[MrAce]

This was played in a Turkish event. They asked my opinion after TD accepted the claim. I said I agree with TD decision. And that they can not force declarer to play ♣Q from the board. This is like you hold AJx in hand and Kxx in dummy and u need 3 tricks in that suit for claim, and they lead this suit and you claim.

 

I may be wrong of course and that is what I wanted to check with you guys.

 

Even if you do play the Q♣ you still make 13 by way of the normal heart finesse.

 

Not sure if they will allow declarer to take any winning line when there are alternatives, once he plays the ♣Q. Claim suggests that declarer thinks he has 13 tricks without any finesse, squeeze etc..by simply cashing his sure tricks. Why would any of us believe declarer would take ♥ finesse when we all saw that he did not even bother to use the hook he has in hand in club suit, on club lead?

 

I believe the issue is whether TD should consider the ♣Q a careless play or illogical play at T1, no?

[sfi]

I believe the issue is whether TD should consider the ♣Q a careless play or illogical play at T1, no?

 

It's inconsistent with the claim, which IMO is prima facie evidence that it is illogical.

[barmar]

The claim implies that declarer recognizes that he received a free finesse on the opening lead. I would be embarassed to dispute this claim.

[barmar]

Q: How do we get players to state a line of play when they claim?

A: Rule against them when they fail to state a line of play and there is a line which fails.

I personally don't bother to state a line of play when it's just top tricks. So I reject the premise that we have to make examples of players like this.

[sacto123]

This sort of thing is what destroys the pace of play by discouraging people from claiming, yes you should play the 8 from dummy before claiming, but saying effectively "I have 13 top tricks" which is totally true should be enough, there are no entry issues, 13 winners and 13 tricks. Even if you do play the Q♣ you still make 13 by way of the normal heart finesse.

 

Particularly saying this to a decent player is insulting their intelligence, I wouldn't have the gall to say anything to anybody who can follow suit.

If you play the Q and then claim, all cards are faced and you are not allowed to take a finesse.

[pran]

I personally don't bother to state a line of play when it's just top tricks. So I reject the premise that we have to make examples of players like this.

There are only 11 "top tricks" here (3+2+2+4).

Playing the ♣Q first in order to avoid a blockage in clubs is not irrational but it is certainly inferior and careless.

 

So is claiming without a statement.

[sfi]

There are only 11 "top tricks" here (3+2+2+4).

Playing the ♣Q first in order to avoid a blockage in clubs is not irrational but it is certainly inferior and careless.

 

So is claiming without a statement.

 

There are six obvious clubs on the lead. Ruling otherwise will quickly turn the game from a contest of skill to one where players out-lawyer each other. Is that really what you want?

[blackshoe]

:(

I personally don't bother to state a line of play when it's just top tricks. So I reject the premise that we have to make examples of players like this.

Of course you do. :(

[MrAce]

I wrote this hand to Kit Woolsey in BW, and he replied.. I will copy and paste.

 

Hi Timo,I agree that what happened at the other table is irrelevant -- that is just stupidity

 

 

Of course I would allow the claim. Declarer has a demonstrable 13 tricks, and obviously knows it.

 

 

Now suppose instead declarer got some non-club lead, claimed without playing a card, and it turned out 10xxxx of clubs was onside. Obviously declarer would make with the natural club play, as the finesse will then be marked. However, I would not let declarer make on that scenario. There is quite a difference.

 

 

Kit

 

 

 

 

[gordontd]

I wrote this hand to Kit Woolsey in BW, and he replied.. I will copy and paste.

Hi Timo,I agree that what happened at the other table is irrelevant -- that is just stupidity

 

 

 

Of course I would allow the claim. Declarer has a demonstrable 13 tricks, and obviously knows it.

 

 

 

Now suppose instead declarer got some non-club lead, claimed without playing a card, and it turned out 10xxxx of clubs was onside. Obviously declarer would make with the natural club play, as the finesse will then be marked. However, I would not let declarer make on that scenario. There is quite a difference.

 

 

 

Kit

I wonder what he is basing his last paragraph on. The situation is explicitly covered by Law 70E1.

 

. The Director shall not accept from claimer any

unstated line of play the success of which depends

upon finding one opponent rather than the other

with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to

follow to the suit of that card before the claim was

made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that

suit on any normal line of play.

[pran]

There are six obvious clubs on the lead.

Not if he plays the ♣Q to trick 1?

[sfi]

Not if he plays the ♣Q to trick 1?

 

True. Declarer might also also try to cash three diamond tricks next. The two possibilities seem equally likely for someone who claims at trick 1 after seeing the club lead.

[WellSpyder]

I wonder what he is basing his last paragraph on. The situation is explicitly covered by Law 70E1.

A declarer who hasn't seen that the club suit is not guaranteed to provide 6 tricks (after all LHO could have 10xxxx, rather than RHO) should be presumed not to see the value of cashing Q as the first trick in the suit.

[gordontd]

A declarer who hasn't seen that the club suit is not guaranteed to provide 6 tricks (after all LHO could have 10xxxx, rather than RHO) should be presumed not to see the value of cashing Q as the first trick in the suit.

Any way of trying to cash the suit (if not led) that doesn't start with the Queen is not in my opinion a normal line. Even if you haven't seen the danger of the bad break, it's normal to start with the high card from the short hand to avoid any danger of blocking it. I seem to remember teaching this to first-year students of the game! That's not to say there might not be reasons to play a suit like this in a different fashion, but absent such reasons I think this is the only normal way of playing it.

[Cyberyeti]

If you play the Q and then claim, all cards are faced and you are not allowed to take a finesse.

 

I agree with that, but he hasn't claimed in that circumstance, I'm saying that even if you force him to play the Q which is ridiculous in itself, the contract still makes by normal play.

[blackshoe]

It's inconsistent with the claim, which IMO is prima facie evidence that it is illogical.

Not sure what this means. Inconsistent with the (non-existant) line of play statement? Inconsistent with the fact that he claimed at all? In the latter case, how so?

[axman]

The claim implies that declarer recognizes that he received a free finesse on the opening lead. I would be embarassed to dispute this claim.

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

[Vampyr]

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

 

Yes. Everyone seems to think that the claimer “obviously knows”. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. But he can easily say so.

 

The problem with accepting claims without statements in cases that could possibly go wrong is that it is a slippery slope, and every director individually decides where to draw the line. I would rather dispense with the line entirely.

[barmar]

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

Silent claims often do. Something like "if you don't see the obvious 13 tricks, you must be blind."