A Genuine Grosvenor

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqth98642da3ckq4&w=sj754hk75djt9cjt6&n=sk6haqt3dq42ca753&e=s9832hjdk8765c982&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1hp2n(FG%20heart%20raise)p3n(15-17%20bal)p4cp4dp4nh(RKCB)p5hp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; lead ♦J; Table Result 6♥?

 

I was called a second time as TD to SB's table in the "Bunnies in Need" charity SIM on Tuesday, and on this board had to decide whether to force declarer to play in strict accordance with his claim statement. SB, West, led the J♦ against the reasonable slam and HH, South, tried the queen but East, ChCh, played the king, won with South's ace. After a little thought, HH led a heart to the queen and East's jack. Pleased to have got that right, HH claimed, and stated. "I will return to hand with a top spade and play a heart to the ten on the second round of trumps. If you have Grosvenor'd me, ChCh, you can have your little chuckle."

 

SB swooped. "Then I will play the king of hearts on the second round", he gloated. "And you are obliged to play the ten, in accordance with your claim statement of how you intended to make 12 tricks and the order in which you intended to play the cards. I think we can enter -100, can't we, or do we need to waste the TD's time again?"

 

How do you rule?

[ahydra]

6H=. "Heart to the ten" is common parlance for finessing the ten if West plays small. DP to SB for his manner.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

6H=. "Heart to the ten" is common parlance for finessing the ten if West plays small. DP to SB for his manner.

ahydra

So, if the layout had been such that declarer needed to play the ten whether or not the king was played (and I was told that there was a third hand on Tuesday where something similar occurred which I might dig up if necessary) you would force declarer to overtake the king with the ace even though he expressly stated he was playing the ten?

 

It seems that even naming the suit and rank is not enough to define a card played by dummy anymore; we also need to discern declarer's intention!

[Cyberyeti]

So, if the layout had been such that declarer needed to play the ten whether or not the king was played (and I was told that there was a third hand on Tuesday where something similar occurred which I might dig up if necessary) you would force declarer to overtake the king with the ace even though he expressly stated he was playing the ten?

 

If you are going to do something unusual like that, then you usually give a higher standard of explanation like "playing the 10 whether you play the K or not" or simply claim a trick later, what declarer said will be interpreted as what he meant in context here.

 

Heart to the 10 is simply short for heart towards the 10.

[lamford]

If you are going to do something unusual like that, then you usually give a higher standard of explanation like "playing the 10 whether you play the K or not" or simply claim a trick later, what declarer said will be interpreted as what he meant in context here.

 

Heart to the 10 is simply short for heart towards the 10.

If declarer had returned to hand and played a heart and called "ten" before West had played, how would you rule? That is effectively what he has done in the claim. He did not say, "finesse the ten of hearts" which means that he plays the ten if West plays low, otherwise he captures the king. He had no knowledge of where the king was, and made no statement about it. If West had a singleton heart, would you allow declarer to rise on the second round of hearts and play four rounds of clubs discarding his diamond, even though declarer had expressly stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps?

 

When a player specifically names the rank and suit, as here, that always designates a card as "played". When a player states the order in which the cards are played, here ace or queen of spades, ten of hearts, that order is part of the clarification statement. There is no need to decide what he intended. It is only incomplete clarification statements that need interpretation.

 

And I know I am playing Devil's Advocate and I ruled that the contract made when called as TD. But I have some doubts as to whether I was right in law and SB has appealed. He also intends to go to the NA and CAS if he loses.

[Cyberyeti]

If declarer had returned to hand and played a heart and called "ten" before West had played, how would you rule? That is effectively what he has done in the claim. He did not say, "finesse the ten of hearts" which means that he plays the ten if West plays low, otherwise he captures the king. He had no knowledge of where the king was, and made no statement about it. If West had a singleton heart, would you allow declarer to rise on the second round of hearts and play four rounds of clubs discarding his diamond, even though declarer had expressly stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps?

 

When a player specifically names the rank and suit, as here, that always designates a card as "played". When a player states the order in which the cards are played, here ace or queen of spades, ten of hearts, that order is part of the clarification statement. There is no need to decide what he intended. It is only incomplete clarification statements that need interpretation.

 

That's a little different, I do NOT agree that this is the same at all. He has said he is leading to(wards) the 10 and is allowed to react (in case the J has been played from Jx to try to get him to expend an extra entry to hand). If he calls 10 first then he loses unless this is what he intended, in this case I think he's fine.

 

I think the claim laws DON'T allow him to cash the clubs because his statement allows for him cashing the spades first and pitching a club, even though no player would ever do this, which is the sort of beef I have with the claim laws.

[lamford]

He has said he is leading to(wards) the 10 and is allowed to react (in case the J has been played from Jx to try to get him to expend an extra entry to hand).

Which law allows him to "react" and change his designation of the ten of hearts in the claim statement? He will not then be playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps.

[lamford]

Heart to the 10 is simply short for heart towards the 10.

Then why have two different prepositions? Is the English language that poor? Heart "to" the ten means that the ten is played willy-nilly. "Spade to the ace" indicates that the ace is played regardless. Heart "towards" the ten does indeed indicate that the direction of play is important, strongly suggesting that declarer intends to finesse. And we already know that doubtful points have to be resolved against the claimer.

[Cyberyeti]

Then why have two different prepositions? Is the English language that poor? Heart "to" the ten means that the ten is played willy-nilly. "Spade to the ace" indicates that the ace is played regardless. Heart "towards" the ten does indeed indicate that the direction of play is important, strongly suggesting that declarer intends to finesse. And we already know that doubtful points have to be resolved against the claimer.

 

Because one can be short for the other.

[lamford]

Because one can be short for the other.

Indeed. Sometimes they are interchangeable, but sometimes the other will sound strange. "I am going towards the railway station", for example. I don't think leading "to the king of spades" is short for leading "towards the king of spades". They are very different in meaning. If someone is sloppy in their use of language, that is their own lookout, and HH speaks fluent English with a full vocabulary of expletives.

 

And looking at the 2017 laws, the clause I recall about "declarer's different intention being incontrovertible" has been removed, so the TD should not interpret "heart to the ten" as meaning "heart towards the ten" or "finessing the ten of hearts".

[axman]

If declarer had returned to hand and played a heart and called "ten" before West had played, how would you rule? That is effectively what he has done in the claim. He did not say, "finesse the ten of hearts" which means that he plays the ten if West plays low, otherwise he captures the king. He had no knowledge of where the king was, and made no statement about it. If West had a singleton heart, would you allow declarer to rise on the second round of hearts and play four rounds of clubs discarding his diamond, even though declarer had expressly stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps?

 

When a player specifically names the rank and suit, as here, that always designates a card as "played". When a player states the order in which the cards are played, here ace or queen of spades, ten of hearts, that order is part of the clarification statement. There is no need to decide what he intended. It is only incomplete clarification statements that need interpretation.

 

And I know I am playing Devil's Advocate and I ruled that the contract made when called as TD. But I have some doubts as to whether I was right in law and SB has appealed. He also intends to go to the NA and CAS if he loses.

 

After some consideration, I concluded that it is better to say 'play west for the HK' rather than 'finesse the T'. As I learned that 'finesse the T' means play the T while the previous leaves no ambiguity that you are waiting for west to 'play' his king if he has it before using the ace.

 

To clarify a bit further, the proper usage of 'finesse the T' is say it after west has played.

Edited April 14, 2018 by axman

[blackshoe]

My dictionary says that the applicable definition of the verb "to finesse" in this case is "2 (in bridge and whist) play (a card that is not a certain winner) in the hope of winning a trick with it: the declarer finesses ♦J.

 

So you finesse the ten; you finesse for the king (or whatever).

[BudH]

Indeed. Sometimes they are interchangeable, but sometimes the other will sound strange. "I am going towards the railway station", for example. I don't think leading "to the king of spades" is short for leading "towards the king of spades". They are very different in meaning. If someone is sloppy in their use of language, that is their own lookout, and HH speaks fluent English with a full vocabulary of expletives.

 

And looking at the 2017 laws, the clause I recall about "declarer's different intention being incontrovertible" has been removed, so the TD should not interpret "heart to the ten" as meaning "heart towards the ten" or "finessing the ten of hearts".

 

Old 2007 Laws - Law 42B: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible."

 

The new laws also use very similar wording.

 

The claim laws did not have the "different intention is incontrovertible" included.

[BudH]

Just in case I might get "SB'd" in the future, I better phrase my claims saying "finesse against the heart king".

 

If a case like this in real life actually gets appealed and the defense gains a trick (instead of getting an "appeal without merit warning" or whatever it is these days for a frivolous appeal), it will be a very sad day for bridge.

[blackshoe]

What makes an appeal frivolous?

[lamford]

Old 2007 Laws - Law 42B: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible."

 

The new laws also use very similar wording.

 

The claim laws did not have the "different intention is incontrovertible" included.

Thanks for that clarification, Bud. In which case, in this example, declarer stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps, without qualification, and named the suit and rank specifically, so I think I was wrong as TD on Tuesday in allowing the claim of 6H=. I would not be surprised if SB succeeds in his appeal somewhere along the line, probably in the CAS who know little about bridge, but do understand legalese. SB has also complained to the committee that describing him as a "so-and-so" in this thread is damaging to his reputation.

[barmar]

Which law allows him to "react" and change his designation of the ten of hearts in the claim statement? He will not then be playing the ten of hearts on the second round of trumps.

Didn't one of the other claim threads quote a regulation that addresses something like this, explaining that players are allowed to notice such plays and make the obvious adjustments?

[lamford]

Didn't one of the other claim threads quote a regulation that addresses something like this, explaining that players are allowed to notice such plays and make the obvious adjustments?

I am not aware of it. Perhaps you can locate it and provide a link? If play had proceeded, a careless declarer might have played a heart to the ten and not reacted to West's card, so playing the ten of hearts on the second round, as stated, is "normal". We have all done it. If he had said "taking the heart finesse", I think he should be awarded the contract. As stated, I think I should have ruled one down, but I did not.

[weejonnie]

For a player of HHs ability, not to play the Ace over the King is not a 'normal' play.

 

Law 70D

 

D. Director’s Considerations

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.

 

SO the director can accept from the claimer a revised statement that he will capture the King with an Ace.

 

Not only that - there is no doubt whatsoever that HH will make this play so law 70A

 

A. General Objective

In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows.

 

Is applied - and equity means the claim is allowed.

[lamford]

For a player of HHs ability, not to play the Ace over the King is not a 'normal' play.

I think the line of play in the clarification statement must be assumed to be "normal". Otherwise what is the purpose of the clarification statement other than to give the line the player proposed to play? That was to "play a heart to (not towards) the ten on the second round of trumps". Unambiguous. No mention of finessing. If he had said that he would lead to the heart ace on the second round of trumps, "perhaps because he thought ChCh would have played the Grosvenor 100% of the time, when it would indeed be correct!" would you regard this as not normal for a player of HH's ability and allow him to replace it with the heart finesse?

[barmar]

I am not aware of it. Perhaps you can locate it and provide a link? If play had proceeded, a careless declarer might have played a heart to the ten and not reacted to West's card, so playing the ten of hearts on the second round, as stated, is "normal". We have all done it. If he had said "taking the heart finesse", I think he should be awarded the contract. As stated, I think I should have ruled one down, but I did not.

It was actually at Bridge Winners, not here. In http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/correct-ruling-on-a-claim/ Roland Voigt wrote:

There are guidelines for contested claims which state:

• if the claimer misspeaks in his claim statement (i.e. undoubtedly had a different intention), the claim should be adjudicated based on the claimer's intention;
  
• the claimer is allowed to notice exceptional occurrences. Suppose, for example, declarer (in a trump contract) says that he will cross to his hand by ruffing and draw the remaining trumps. If the player in front of him ruffs first, he is allowed to notice this and overruff, rather than playing a smaller trump under it.
  

I'm not sure where he's quoting from (it's not the EBU White Book), but this seems to be an example of the second bullet. There's also some of the first bullet -- he misspoke when being specific about the 10, rather than just saying that he would play a high enough card to win the finesse.

[lamford]

He misspoke when being specific about the 10, rather than just saying that he would play a high enough card to win the finesse.

That is an approach. And indeed, if play had proceeded and declarer misspoke and said "ten" when West played the king, some (bad) TDs might decide that his incontrovertible intention was to play the ace and allow the change. However, I don't see any facility in the Laws for TDs to correct obvious errors in a claim, despite what Roland Volgt posted. In that example, declarer claimed stating that he would run the clubs and I think that is what he should have been forced to do, and I think 81% of people agreed.

 

I would prefer that the claim laws included a phrase "except where declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". But they don't. So I think declarer is always bound by his claim statement if it can be followed, with any doubt about meaning resolved in favour of the defenders. In this case, declarer stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of the suit. That is what he should be forced to do.

[lamford]

DP to SB for his manner.

The WBF Code of Practice says that "a player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism". - Roland Volgt

[barmar]

Someone else responded and pointed out where that guideline comes from. It's apparently derived from the EBU White Book section 8.70.8 (although worded differently), which references a WBFLC minute from 2001.

 

So we're not supposed to be sticklers for the exact words in the claim statement, but understand the intent.

[pescetom]

According to the OP, the claim by HH contained the phrase "If you have Grosvenor'd me, ChCh, you can have your little chuckle."

Does this not indicate that his chosen line of play would fail if the king of hearts was on the right, and thus by clear implication that it was aimed to capture the king on the left?