Challenged Claim

[mink]

If declarer really knows that he has to care for the ♣10 and does not like to talk so much, he can easily play ♣8 from the dummy and then claim immediately. Claiming without playing any card and without saying anything can have 2 reasons:

1. He thinks that it is obvious for everybody that the 8 must be played now.
   
2. He fails to see that a 5-0 break of ♣ creates a problem.
   

The second might occur due to euphoria about having bid a grand slam that appears to make or by just miscalculating the ♣ cards that are left for defenders. Evidence for the failure to see the problem is that he does not mention the possible 5-0 break and does not play a card from the dummy before claiming. If he really fails to see the problem, ♣Queen is a normal play, as others have pointed out already.

 

I do not accept the idea that the fact that a claim was made is evidence that problem was envisioned by declarer. This is just nonsense.

 

Regarding the class of player involved, of course the probability of not seeing the problem becomes smaller the smarter the declarer appears to be. But it never reaches zero. So even if I truly believe that this declarer, whom I know and admire as a bridge player, should see the problem, I shall rule against him at this occasion. But I doubt that such a player would make such a claim without statement.

 

Karl

[MrAce]

Deleted; I was wrong about David Burn's reply.

[Vampyr]

Deleted; I was wrong about David Burn's reply.

 

LOL did you expect him to support your opinion and he did not? :D

[MrAce]

LOL did you expect him to support your opinion and he did not? :D

 

No, he wrote something that no one understood first, as he always does in his high chair, and I thought that was David Gold first.

I know David Gold would never agree with those who thinks TD was wrong, so that led me to think different of what Mr. Burn wrote.

I may be wrong about decision of David Gold, since he did not vote or commented yet, we will see soon.

But I think Kit Woolsey nailed it.

[lamford]

I agree with gordontd that the queen is the only normal play but only unless the suit is led. I think that an immediate claim (without playing a card from dummy) is correct when West leads. There is no need for any statement. The ruling on this hand is trivial in my view and anyone ruling one down would just cause me to boycott any events they run and I would encourage others to do so. Barmar's explanation above is conclusive for me.

 

Most interesting is when a spade is led, and declarer claims silently. Now I think declarer goes down, as playing the queen of clubs first is automatic and playing for the drop in hearts is (vastly) inferior but just a careless line. On a spade lead, if there is Qx of hearts onside, declarer gets to make anyway, as there is no "normal" line which fails.

[lamford]

No, he wrote something that no one understood first, as he always does in his high chair, and I thought that was David Gold first.

I know David Gold would never agree with those who thinks TD was wrong, so that led me to think different of what Mr. Burn wrote.

I may be wrong about decision of David Gold, since he did not vote or commented yet, we will see soon.

But I think Kit Woolsey nailed it.

That response of DavidBurn's is pretty standard. I know that he would not rule that way - at least I have never come across a ruling of his which is other than balanced and fair - but he seems to enjoy his hobby horse of ruling claims in a forum in the most disadvantageous way for the declarer!

[Vampyr]

There are two problems with allowing claims such as this.

 

The first is that, suppose at an adjacent table there is a player who is not very strong, and cannot be assumed to have noticed the possibility of a 5-0 club break. Do you rule against him, lending credence to the opinion, held by a fair number of players, that bridge is designed to advantage the elite?

 

Also, once we start assuming what declarer has “obviously” “implied”, “obvious” becomes less and less so. There is no reason whatsoever to refuse to utter a brief claim statement. “13 tricks on the club lead” or in this case, why not play a card to the first trick and then claim? If there were some reason not to do one of these things, I would have a lot more sympathy with allowing the TD’s ruling.

[Vampyr]

Someone on Bridge Winners said exactly what I was thinking. The reason not to even do so much as play the first card from Dummy feels that it is much cooler not to.

[sfi]

Someone on Bridge Winners said exactly what I was thinking. The reason not to even do so much as play the first card from Dummy feels that it is much cooler not to.

 

The other reason is that you now have 6 club tricks and 7 more outside no matter what the club position is. I'm struggling to see how a claim that includes a statement along the lines of "now I have 6 club tricks" is any more clear than just showing my hand - how else do we expect declarer to count to 13 here?

 

The idea of even questioning this as an opponent is genuinely bizarre to me. And the opponent's level doesn't matter - I'm accepting from the beginner who took up the game last week.

[sfi]

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

 

In a thread full of strange assertions, this is undoubtedly the silliest. How do you get to this conclusion?

 

And what about my opponent who recently asked dummy whether she had what she had shown in the auction, while I was contemplating the opening lead? When she said yes, declarer showed his hand and claimed all 13 tricks. We moved on, only distracted by the requirement to enter a lead into the bridgemate.

[MrAce]

So, no one up for the procedural penalty?

To West player of course for calling the TD!http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[sfi]

No, but they're off my potential teammate list for sure.

[lamford]

So, no one up for the procedural penalty?

To West player of course for calling the TD!

No, you cannot give a PP for calling the TD. Although you can give him a PP for:

"summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." The interpretation of that is .... in the hands of the TD. And if he complains, double his PP and give him a red card as Buffon correctly had.

[barmar]

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.

It may also be evidence that these two players are not in the same class. Only an incompetent player would refuse a free finesse in a situation like this.

 

There are times when you do have to refuse a free finesse, due to transportation issues. This is not one of them, so it's just stupid to play the Q, not merely careless, IMHO.

[weejonnie]

It may also be evidence that these two players are not in the same class. Only an incompetent player would refuse a free finesse in a situation like this.

 

There are times when you do have to refuse a free finesse, due to transportation issues. This is not one of them, so it's just stupid to play the Q, not merely careless, IMHO.

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

 

I have commented on this hand on Bridgewinners. The problem is: there is no definition of 'normal' or to what extent/ when does 'careless or inferior' morph into 'not normal'. (Obviously we have the same problem with UI cases where 'class of player' is specifically mentioned.)

 

Looking at the problem in another light: WW/ TT would play the Queen, HH would run the club to his hand, RR wouldn't spot the Queen of clubs anyway. I would rule in favour of CC/ Papa as well - and obviously for Karapet.

[lamford]

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

 

I have commented on this hand on Bridgewinners. The problem is: there is no definition of 'normal' or to what extent/ when does 'careless or inferior' morph into 'not normal'. (Obviously we have the same problem with UI cases where 'class of player' is specifically mentioned.)

 

Looking at the problem in another light: WW/ TT would play the Queen, HH would run the club to his hand, RR wouldn't spot the Queen of clubs anyway. I would rule in favour of CC/ Papa as well - and obviously for Karapet.

Karapet would not have been blessed with the luck of a club lead. He would have had a spade lead, tested the clubs and found they were not breaking, and realised he needed four heart tricks. He would notice that he could pick up ♥Q932 or ♥9732 onside if he started with the ace. If there was ♥Q972 or ♥Q973 onside, he needed to run the ten and then run the eight. He correctly worked out that cashing the ace first was right, as RR should duck the 8 with 97x on the second round! This time West did have ♥Q97x! The Witch of Ararat had already caused him to lose the toss of the coin 173 times out of 173 Crockfords matches, so he certainly would never claim!

 

[Edited for fascinating suit combination which I got wrong twice!]

[barmar]

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

My contention is that the silent claim before playing the Q strongly suggests that the player sees the free finesse and realizes there's no need to refuse it. Playing the Q at the other table indicates that that player didn't notice this or didn't think it was relevant for some reason (he miscounted clubs or didn't consider a bad break).

[Vampyr]

My contention is that the silent claim before playing the Q strongly suggests that the player sees the free finesse and realizes there's no need to refuse it.

 

My contention is that the silent claim before playing small strongly suggests... well not really, but who knows?

 

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

 

I recently had to make a ruling on a bad claim. I knew that the player knew what was going on; he is a frequent partner of mine and a good player. I would rather be a bit of a stickler in order to ensure a level playing field.

[lamford]

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

The TD. And she doesn't impose plays like the queen of clubs that are Upney or Becontree (beyond Barking for those that are unfamiliar with the Underground). A much tougher decision here is what happens if declarer claims silently on a spade lead.

[Vampyr]

The TD.

 

Yes, this is he problem. Every TD in the world will have a different threshold to what is “obvious”.

[barmar]

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

The same arbiter of what is pornography versus erotica. If "I know it when I see it" is good enough for a Supreme Court justice, it's good enough for me.

[blackshoe]

Pfui. Real life is not a game. Bridge is.

[MrAce]

A much tougher decision here is what happens if declarer claims silently on a spade lead.

 

Not tough at all for me.

7 NT -1

 

Having said that, it would be tougher if ♥Q was dropping on AK, silent claim forcing declarer not to take the % ♥ finesse, will result in favor of declarer, whereas had he played or made a statement he would probably go down.

I think you TDs know what to do much better than me in that kind of scenarios. But my own logic says I should rule 7 NT -1 even if Q was dropping.

[ahydra]

Not tough at all for me.

7 NT -1

 

Having said that, it would be tougher if ♥Q was dropping on AK, silent claim forcing declarer not to take the % ♥ finesse, will result in favor of declarer, whereas had he played or made a statement he would probably go down.

I think you TDs know what to do much better than me in that kind of scenarios. But my own logic says I should rule 7 NT -1 even if Q was dropping.

 

I think the law (70E1) agrees with you.

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

The same arbiter of what is pornography versus erotica. If "I know it when I see it" is good enough for a Supreme Court justice, it's good enough for me.

 

 

Pfui. Real life is not a game. Bridge is.

 

Well, yes. I don’t think that barmar is being serious, as he obviously sees the problem with this approach.