Order! Order!

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85hat3dkq2c984&w=sh854djtcakqj6532&n=saq963hkqj62da65c&e=sj742h97d98743ct7&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n(12-14)2c(majors)p2n(forcing%20enquiry)p3d(5-5%20short%20clubs)p3sp4c(void)p4n(club%20ERKCB)p5s(2%2BQ)p6d(general%20GStry)p7sppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints. Lead ♣A. Table Result?

This hand from the "Bunnies in Need" simultaneous pairs at a North London Club on Tuesday featured a good auction by OO, South, and HH, North. OO was playing to avoid a half-table in a charity event. RR was West and his weak NT was far from classic, but he did have three of his small clubs "in" with his spades, which partly explains it and he added a point for the good suit. He led the ace of clubs and OO, South, ruffed and claimed when East followed. "They are all there now," he stated, "I can pick up your spades even if they are 4-0".

 

SB, East, was on to it in a flash. "The word 'your' is ambiguous in the English language", he began. "And your claim was not accompanied by a statement of the way in which you intended to make 13 tricks nor the order in which you intended to play the cards. The "your" might well have just referred to RR - who had after all opened 1NT - and might not have also referred to me." He paused for breath. "You might not have noticed that you could pick up Jxxx in either hand and you could have carelessly played a spade to the king". "I think it is one down, is it not?" he ruled. "And the fact that you are playing in a charity event to make up the numbers is irrelevant. Charity begins at home", he concluded, boorishly.

 

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he shouted at the top of his voice, feeling so pleased at his first director call ever against OO, who admittedly did not play that often.

 

How do you rule?

[barmar]

Was he looking at RR when he said "your"? Often the ambiguity between singular and plural "you" is resolved by gesture or body language.

 

If he'd said something like "I can pick up 4 spades in either hand" or "even if they're 4-0 either way" I think it would be clear to allow it. That implies that he knows to play a top spade from dummy first, to see which way to finesse if they don't break.

[lamford]

Was he looking at RR when he said "your"? Often the ambiguity between singular and plural "you" is resolved by gesture or body language.

 

If he'd said something like "I can pick up 4 spades in either hand" or "even if they're 4-0 either way" I think it would be clear to allow it. That implies that he knows to play a top spade from dummy first, to see which way to finesse if they don't break.

He wasn't looking at anyone. And Oscar the Owl argued that "4-0" included "0-4" in customary bridge terminology. If you say that something is only beaten because trumps are 4-0, that means "either way". He did make a mental note to cross every "t" and dot every "i" next time he played against SB.

[barmar]

Was it really the abiguity of "your" that caused the issue? Would there be any difference if he'd said "I can pick up the spades even if they're 4-0?"

 

What SB really seems to be saying is that OO will assume that RR has his bid, so there's no need to cater to a spade void in West. But OO has been in this club long enough to know that this is an unwarranted assumption.

 

This is also a very common suit combination, which every experienced player knows to start from the hand with AQ, and there's no reason on this hand to do anything different.

 

It would have been nice if OO had used a qualifier to indicate that he can pick up either break, but I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[lamford]

Would there be any difference if he'd said "I can pick up the spades even if they're 4-0?"

I tend to agree, but SB doesn't of course. OO took no account of the auction when claiming, as he was able to pick up 4-0 in either hand. SB thinks he should have added "starting with a top honour from North" but I think even mentioning the fact that you can pick them up if they are 4-0 is enough. The safety play is hardly rocket science.

[weejonnie]

I tend to agree, but SB doesn't of course. OO took no account of the auction when claiming, as he was able to pick up 4-0 in either hand. SB thinks he should have added "starting with a top honour from North" but I think even mentioning the fact that you can pick them up if they are 4-0 is enough. The safety play is hardly rocket science.

I think it is for someone who has only "played nearly 50 hands" - which I believe VM used to describe OO's bridge-playing history.

 

Later, in the bar, HH spoke to OO.

 

"You were unlucky OO. Unlucky in that you were playing the hand and not me. Had I made such a claim it would have been allowed as for ME not to take the standard safety play would be abnormal."

[lamford]

I think it is for someone who has only "played nearly 50 hands" - which I believe VM used to describe OO's bridge-playing history.

But, as the senior kibitzer, he must have watched 5000 hands, so he would have seen the play many times.

[weejonnie]

But, as the senior kibitzer, he must have watched 5000 hands, so he would have seen the play many times.

I have seen lots of hands (far more than 5000 I suspect) and wouldn't be able to recognise the conditions for a 'suicide seesaw squeeze' for instance. The safety play for dealing with a 4-0 trump split missing the jack is well known - but it is not intuitive for a beginner. In fact some might say "what is a safety play?"

 

As I've said - we have to look at the class of player. HH, Papa and CC would always get it right. RR's Guardian Angel would definitely get it right and Karapet would definitely take a precaution for a safety play. - > To these people not taking the safety play is abnormal. On the other side, TT and WW are quite capable of missing it. ChCh is nearly an average player so he might miss it. SB fails to make a safety play in "Wining Bridge in the Menagerie" so I would rule against him.

[lamford]

"Wining Bridge in the Menagerie"

:)

 

Oscar the Owl is clearly an expert however. He even noticed in a recent thread that RR had executed a stepping-stone trump squeeze when playing the hand in no-trumps.

[barmar]

As I've said - we have to look at the class of player. HH, Papa and CC would always get it right. RR's Guardian Angel would definitely get it right and Karapet would definitely take a precaution for a safety play. - > To these people not taking the safety play is abnormal. On the other side, TT and WW are quite capable of missing it. ChCh is nearly an average player so he might miss it. SB fails to make a safety play in "Wining Bridge in the Menagerie" so I would rule against him.

And RR would lead a low trump, planning to play the K, but get distracted and play low (thinking they'd led a high trump), picking up the suit totally by accident.

[sanst]

I'm getting a bit tired of the discussions about claims. Law 68D is one of the easiest to understand: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played."

Anybody who claims SHOULD make such a statement. You can't hide behind "it's an insult to the intellect of the others to do so", or "anyone with two or more brain cells doesn't need an explanation". No, you make your statement and only when the opps concede you can stop. If you fail to fulfill this obligation, the TD should follow Law 70. Since we rarely, 'never' covers it better, are present at the occasion and don't know anything about the players involved, it's hard to decide, to say the least, about the line of play that these players would follow.

[lamford]

Anybody who claims SHOULD make such a statement.

From the introduction to the laws: “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised)

 

The infractor's rights are correctly jeopardised when he claims without a statement, but he still gets the least favourable "normal" line. I am also fed up of the discussion of claims, when the laws are pretty clear on the subject. If you make a wrong claim, you don't get forced to play misère, but do get given any error that might be at all likely.

 

In this case, I would say that it is just possible that OO only considered trumps 4-0 one way, but unlikely that he would start with the king even so. His statement made it clear that he had considered trumps 4-0, and it is then worse than careless to start with the king. But I could be persuaded it is just careless.