Challenged Claim

[pran]

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

When there are 13 obvious tricks - fine.

 

This thread concerns a case with a maximum of 12 obvious tricks.

[sfi]

Last time you counted 11, so you are getting closer. :)

[pran]

Last time you counted 11, so you are getting closer. :)

I concede that several of you count 12 obvious tricks.

I don't when I include the possibility of careless or inferior play (which Law 70E1 requires me to do).

That is why I wrote maximum 12 (to cater for the lenient Director).

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj3haq32dk32cak3&n=sk2hkj54da54cqj54]133|200[/hv]

According to some of you, TD should not accept a silent claim by South, in 7 NT contract, when the lead is small ♠.

You may of course claim that you are not sure whether declarer would play the ♠K or small.

But your doubt does not change my mind about what declarer intended to do.

If anything, it says more about you and your counting skills.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[MrAce]

Here is a better example;

 

You hold KT9 in dummy and AJ8 in hand. You cleared trumps and made the elimination and put one of your opponents in. He has to play sluff'n ruff or play this suit. This is a daily base type of claim that almost no one makes any explanation. Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here. If there are people who do not get this position and needs to be explained, but somehow spend his/her time to read the law book all the way deep into the smallest details, needs to get a life (or another game) imo. And the situation is precisely the same in OP.

[blackshoe]

"Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here."

 

And that changes the law? Oh, I see. I'll go look for a life, then.

[Vampyr]

[hv=pc=n&s=saj3haq32dk32cak3&n=sk2hkj54da54cqj54]133|200[/hv]

According to some of you, TD should not accept a silent claim by South, in 7 NT contract, when the lead is small ♠.

You may of course claim that you are not sure whether declarer would play the ♠K or small.

But your doubt does not change my mind about what declarer intended to do.

If anything, it says more about you and your counting skills.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

Please include the link in which this hand was discussed. I do not remember it.

[sfi]

Please include the link in which this hand was discussed. I do not remember it.

 

It's the same hand as in the original post. Only the cards are different.

[Vampyr]

It's the same hand as in the original post. Only the cards are different.

 

Maybe not so different. There are 13 cards in each suit.

[MrAce]

"Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here."

 

And that changes the law? Oh, I see. I'll go look for a life, then.

 

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.

To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

[Cyberyeti]

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.

To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

 

Yes this is my problem with it, I'm being told that it's merely careless or inferior to do something so moronic I wouldn't have done it for 40 years of my bridge life. Yes if there was a possible entry issue maybe, but not in this case.

[pran]

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.

To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

Yes this is my problem with it, I'm being told that it's merely careless or inferior to do something so moronic I wouldn't have done it for 40 years of my bridge life. Yes if there was a possible entry issue maybe, but not in this case.

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

 

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

 

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

[Cyberyeti]

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

 

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

 

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

 

Because he had a cow fly by, you have to ? absolutely irrelevant unless neither declarer has been playing the game for more than 10 minutes.

[weejonnie]

It all comes down to whether failing to run the club round to the ten is not 'normal' ('includes careless or inferior' - although no one has yet defined what 'careless or inferior' really is. Technically it is IMHO any play that does not involve an infraction e.g. a revoke, leading from wrong hand etc). The use of the word 'irrational' (never used in this law of course) gave scope for discussion.)

 

As Declarer I can see 3 spades 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and 6 clubs = 13 tricks. I think it is only careless to not cater for a 5-0 club split since it seems logical to plan to unblock the Queen, Win the red suit tricks in dummy, and cash three spades, leaving South with 5 'winning' clubs. (Note West has to discard the Q[d] on the third spade).

 

So I will rule 1 down - I won't even allow declarer to finesse the Hearts.

 

Next time declarer will say "Running the club to the J9, unblock the Queen, Cash the two Ace Kings in Dummy and then 3 spades ending in my hand: then playing clubs from the top."

 

Note that this is quite a long required explanation, which requires several technical plays - thus plenty of scope for declarer to do something else.

[barmar]

Here is a better example;

 

You hold KT9 in dummy and AJ8 in hand. You cleared trumps and made the elimination and put one of your opponents in. He has to play sluff'n ruff or play this suit. This is a daily base type of claim that almost no one makes any explanation. Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here. If there are people who do not get this position and needs to be explained, but somehow spend his/her time to read the law book all the way deep into the smallest details, needs to get a life (or another game) imo. And the situation is precisely the same in OP.

Whether I give a detailed explanation would depend on the expertise of my opponents (assuming I'm playing against people I know).

 

If they know how to execute a strip-and-endplay, I'd just face my hand, and perhaps say "you're endplayed", expecting them to recognize the situation. As you said, to do more is insulting their bridge intelligence.

 

If they're novices (or life novices), I'd explain the details of how the endplay works. Or I might not even claim until after they lead to the next trick, when it becomes clear whether I'm ruffing or taking the free finesse. I'm not worried about insulting their intelligence -- these are the players who routinely question claims that come with clear explanations ("What about my ace?" "I said I was giving you that trick.").

[barmar]

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

 

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

 

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

Because the peer didn't claim. The fact that this declarer didn't see the need to explain implies that he recognizes that the free finesse solved the club problem and gave him a sure 13th trick.

 

Since the other player played the queen, he obviously didn't notice this.

 

Yes, I realize this opens the way to a form of cheating -- just face your hand and you'll automatically get the benefit of the doubt. But most situations aren't so clear-cut that you can take advantage of this (e.g. some of the threads we've had in the past where clever unblocking plays are needed).

 

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

[barmar]

BTW, if you play against the BBO robots, these "benefit of the doubt" claims work -- which can be useful if you've forgotten whether a spot card is high or an opponent has already shown out of a suit you need to finesse. The software doesn't provide a way for you to explain your line to the robots, so the system just checks whether there's any sure line (just given what a declarer with perfect memory would know) for the number of tricks you're claiming.

 

On the other hand, if you claim less than the number of tricks you could make, it doesn't reject the claim. In most cases where I've made claims like this, I could lose those tricks by careless play, so it's not a violation of the law that says you mustn't accept tricks you couldn't win.

[lamford]

I would adjust the score to 7NTx=. East-West won't contest the claim next time. Also the contract is cold if the queen of clubs is played from dummy. Declarer cashes two diamonds and then three spades catches West in a show-up squeeze and declarer makes four heart tricks without the finesse he is not allowed to take! That is how RR would play it.

[blackshoe]

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

The rules are the rules. I do not understand people who think they can do whatever they hell they want, regardless what the rules say. As for "no one would ever do that", you are demonstrably wrong, since I not only would do that, I do do that. Not always, I admit, but if there's any line of play that might not work, I do.

 

One purpose, it seems to me, for the requirement to state your line of play is so that the director (not to mention your opponents) doesn't have to try to get into your head to see whether you saw a potential problem.

[pran]

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

 

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

 

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

 

Because the peer didn't claim. The fact that this declarer didn't see the need to explain implies that he recognizes that the free finesse solved the club problem and gave him a sure 13th trick.

 

Since the other player played the queen, he obviously didn't notice this.

 

Yes, I realize this opens the way to a form of cheating -- just face your hand and you'll automatically get the benefit of the doubt. But most situations aren't so clear-cut that you can take advantage of this (e.g. some of the threads we've had in the past where clever unblocking plays are needed).

 

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

 

The fact that the peer didn't claim is irrelevant.

The fact that the peer played the ♣Q in exactly the same situation is evidence that playing the ♣Q is "normal" (as defined in Law 70E1) for players of this class in this situation.

 

Claiming without even bothering to follow suit from Dummy at trick 1 shows serious disrespect to the relevant laws on claiming.

[lamford]

Claiming without even bothering to follow suit from Dummy at trick 1 shows serious disrespect to the relevant laws on claiming.

Not claiming at trick one, playing from dummy and waiting any time at all for East to think about how he might defend shows serious disrespect to Law 74B4:

 

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

 

I would impose a PP on declarer if he DID play from dummy at trick one, unless of course he actually played the queen.

[nige1]

MrAce, Lamford, and Barmar are right that the claim is likely to be predicated on declarer's realization that the opening lead ensured 13 tricks.

 

The contrary views of Sven and co are equally worth consideration, however. In particular, it seems wrong that directors routinely rule in favor of players who deliberately break the law by failing to make a proper claim statement.

 

It's remarkable how often directors are evenly split between conflicting rulings in claim-cases. Obviously, rule-makers could simplify duplicate claim-law enough to produce more consistent rulings. Perhaps, along the lines of rubber-bridge or on-line claim law.

[MrAce]

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

 

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

 

He should lose the board for playing Q at T1 and not be rewarded when TD obviously knows what declarer meant when other player claimed silently.

But according to some of you, the silence of declarer meant something else and lack of explanation gives auto reward/penalty for one side. This is what i disagree.

[mink]

... Also the contract is cold if the queen of clubs is played from dummy. Declarer cashes two diamonds and then three spades catches West in a show-up squeeze and declarer makes four heart tricks without the finesse he is not allowed to take! That is how RR would play it.

 

I also considered this line of play, but found that West can still discard a ♦ on the third round of ♠ - no squeeze.

[MrAce]

Okay, I admit I expected a full support for the TD decision on this one.

Blackshoe is the only one I give credit to among those who disagrees with me and I was surprised. Rest of them are unknown by me (they are new to forums or to forums that I read and write more often than this one) and 1 very well known troll (at least for good players in BBF) among them. Who always makes me feel like worshiping Hroathgar, Fred and Wank!

 

Fwiw, I polled this at BW.

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/rule-this-claim-2-m8wxg62i68/