[lamford]

RMB1, on 2010-December-21, 12:46, said:

We have case law that when the claim statement is inconsistent, we ignore it (all of it) and rule as if claimer had made no statement.

I ignore the inconsistent claim statement and now I can apply Law 70E (finesse or drop) and "force" declarer to finesse in spades when the clubs don't break.

I think this is absolutely correct, and results in two down. I don't agree with FrancesHinden that declarer will be deemed not to notice that clubs are 5-0, as 71E1 implies that declarer observes when people show out (<snip> 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 <snip>). When the failure to be able to make five clubs tricks becomes apparent, we now give the declarer the least favourable of any rational lines. And that is the spade finesse. I don't regard rising with the ace on the second round as being rational, but even if it were, we would resolve that doubtful point against the claimant and disallow it. His statement that he would not take the spade finesse was in the context of having 12 top tricks, and is not relevant to the decision as to how declarer will play when he discovers that clubs are 5-0.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-22, 04:23, said:

This is like a recent case we had. The law explicitly provides that people can make decisions on the basis of discovering that people don't follow suit.

Explicitly? Where?

iviehoff, on 2010-December-22, 04:23, said:

Declarer will cash the CA and discover his claim is faulty. He will change his line of play in consequence.

Someone said declarer will cash the SA before the CA? We don't know that. We must assume he will cash the CA first.

One down.

Why must we assume? Would you give him his claim if the spade finesse was winning?

[mfa1010]

I'm with lamford, iviehoff and RMB1.

But it is 2 down then, right? After a second spade finesse there are only 10 tricks.

I think there are two possible approaches.

Either declarer is held to his plan as a whole and not being allowed to realize that the clubs don't cash. That would lead to down 2 after trying to cash the 5th club after having run all the red suit winners.

Or declarer is "allowed" to realize his plan is off. But that means his entire plan is off, since topping spades was under the assumption that he needed only 2 spade tricks. So now he has no stated plan for 12 tricks anymore and is reduced to the normal (unlucky) play of taking a second finesse.

I think the second approach is right in this case. But both should lead to down two.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:55, said:

Explicitly? Where?


Why must we assume? Would you give him his claim if the spade finesse was winning?

We don't need to assume anything. We just select the "normal" line that is least favourable to the claimant.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:55, said:

Explicitly? Where?

L70E1 is the law that refers to showing out, as I'm sure you know.
I can't find the old thread. But I'm pretty sure we all agreed that once declarer exposes clear information that his claim statement is founded upon a false assumption, then he uses that information, rather than carrying on mechanically following what it says in his claim statement. Otherwise L70E1 has no meaning.

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:55, said:

Why must we assume? Would you give him his claim if the spade finesse was winning?

We assume a claimant makes decisions unhelpful to his own position whenever there is a choice, and it is a normal play. So if the finesse was succeeding, I would have assumed that he doesn't take it.

[nige1]

In most cases, directors rule that if a claimer mistakenly desigates a card as a trick then he can be made to "cash" it. I think Frances is right. Her order of play may not be optimal but if you believe your clubs are good then it is quite normal. As a player, however, I would regard Paul's interpretation as grossly unfair: the director forces the claimer to take the spade finesse, in blatant contradiction of what his claim explicitly specified. But if the spade finesse were right, I presume that the claimer would be forced to reject it. IMO, many faulty claims are faulty precisely because they are inconsistent with reality. IMO, that should not mean that the director imposes his superior judgement, contradicting an explicit commitment in the claim statement.

[hatchett]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-22, 08:39, said:

We assume a claimant makes decisions unhelpful to his own position whenever there is a choice, and it is a normal play. So if the finesse was succeeding, I would have assumed that he doesn't take it.

Playing for Kx offside is a normal play?
Say in a similar situation declarer had
to play AKQT9x op xxx for no loser. Would you make him finesse into
stiff J offside?

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-22, 04:23, said:

This is like a recent case we had. The law explicitly provides that people can make decisions on the basis of discovering that people don't follow suit. Declarer will cash the CA and discover his claim is faulty. He will change his line of play in consequence.

Someone said declarer will cash the SA before the CA? We don't know that. We must assume he will cash the CA first.

One down.

Must we? Which law says so? As I said upthread, I don't think we must or should assume anything.

The poster who spoke of cashing the ♠A first also said that "the only doubtful point is whether he would notice the ♠K drop, and then cash his ♠J". The law tells us to resolve doubtful points in favor of the non-claiming side, so we rule that he would not cash the ♠J, go back to his hand, and take his remaining nine tricks. So he's down one, not because we assume anything, but because we rule as the law tells us to rule.

[mycroft]

Hatchett: No, but playing the SA before running the clubs is a "normal" play.

General: Even the Rueful Rabbit will notice that his 5 clubs aren't 5 tricks after the SB shows out. "Oh,..." is one of the most common RR statements when he's declarer in Mollo's books, in fact. So I can't go along with Frances - he just won't play that C8.

That's what makes this interesting. If he had claimed "SA, I have 12 tricks after that, I'm taking them", he gets 12 tricks pretty much auto (he'll probably lose the last club after pitching the heart on the SJ). If he plays the SA, see the K drop, and claims 13, he gets 12.

But he claimed before playing the SA, just saying he was going to. And then, we may have to say that he's going to play in the order red suits, then clubs, then SA, which will lead to the "Oops, I only have 11" problem after the CA. At which point, the normal line is 10 tricks, despite his claim statement.

Ed: I also don't believe that seeing the K drop is at all "doubtful", any more than seeing that West shows out on the first club is "doubtful". But there is little reason to believe that claimer wouldn't play in such a way as to make the losing finesse "normal" again. As I said, that's what makes this interesting.

[dburn]

mycroft, on 2010-December-22, 12:26, said:

I also don't believe that seeing the K drop is at all "doubtful", any more than seeing that West shows out on the first club is "doubtful". But there is little reason to believe that claimer wouldn't play in such a way as to make the losing finesse "normal" again.

I am not at all sure about this. Whereas a declarer who sees East drop the king of spades under the ace will not "normally" fail to notice that the jack of spades is therefore a winner, a declarer who claims on the basis that he has "twelve top tricks" may "normally" fail to notice that his fifth club isn't good even though West shows out on the first round of clubs.

But what has that to do with anything? Waffle about declarer finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, so that repeating the spade finesse has become "normal play" even though declarer explicitly said that he would not do it, is... well, it is waffle. So is waffle to the effect that declarer, on finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, is "luckily" forced by his statement not to repeat the spade finesse.

If you attempt to adjudicate doubtful claims on the basis of "what would have happened if declarer had played the hand out", you are bound (as this thread and many others amply show) to get involved in the kind of subjective reasoning about declarer's ability and state of mind, and about the "intent" of the Laws, that leads to complete absurdity. This is not entirely your fault, of course, for the Laws themselves are (in this respect) completely absurd; nevertheless, it is important to follow them if at all possible.

We do so thus:

Declarer has claimed. He should have made "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played" [Law 68C]. He hasn't - he has merely burbled something about not repeating the spade finesse because he has "twelve top tricks". The opponents (presumably) having objected to the claim, the Director "hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections)". [Law 70B2].

Well, East objects on the grounds that declarer does not have "twelve top tricks". That is: East has spotted that declarer does not have five club tricks. The Director has doubtless spotted it also - but that is no reason for the Director to believe that South would have spotted it even if South had played the hand out. He didn't spot the possibility before he claimed - why should he be presumed to spot it if he continues to play?

Many, many times I have seen declarers (and defenders) try to cash a card that isn't a winner because the suit has broken worse than they imagined it could; I am sure that everyone here has experienced such cases. In my sleepier moments, which become more frequent as my years advance, I have made such plays myself. Of course, I should have claimed instead - or at least, I should have claimed if certain lunatic contributions to these forums are to be viewed as representing the current legal position.

These plays fall squarely into the category of "careless" or "inferior", and these plays are certainly "normal" within the meaning of the Act. And declarers prone to making them should not be saved from the consequences of their folly simply because the opponents or the Director can count better than they can. Frances is quite right - declarer should be presumed to try to cash his clubs, and to lose the fifth round of the suit to East.

But should he, as Frances suggests, be presumed to cash his side winners first? And if so, might not those side winners include the ace of spades? How can Frances justify her suggestion that declarer would in fact cash his red-suit tops but not the spade ace before the fifth club? Now do you begin to see what happens if you follow the route of trying to decide how a "normal" declarer would in fact play the hand? And now do you begin to see why this route leads to complete absurdity? It simply must not be the case that two equally and highly competent referees, confronted with exactly the same set of facts, should give two diametrically opposite decisions both of which they can argue with equal force are consistent with the Laws. Yet this happens time and time again at bridge (and will continue to happen as long as the Laws attempt to remain based in some nebulous notion of "equity").

This is why the only rational Law relating to claims reads as follows:

Law 68C

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which
the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. In adjudicating a claim, any cards not explicitly covered by this statement will be adjudged by the Director to be played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer's side, and the score adjusted accordingly (in the absence of any statement, all cards belonging to the claimer's side are so treated).

It will be noted that once this suggestion is adopted, the Law that follows it will be the present Law 72. What is good for bridge is also good for the rain forest. Meanwhile, declarer is down at least three (two for being incompetent and one for wasting police time) - but since he probably doesn't exist, he probably won't mind.

[iviehoff]

hatchett, on 2010-December-22, 09:19, said:

Playing for Kx offside is a normal play?
Say in a similar situation declarer had
to play AKQT9x op xxx for no loser. Would you make him finesse into
stiff J offside?

You are, I trust, aware of the legal definition of "normal", ie, it includes "careless" and "inferior". At trick 12, with the opponents known to hold only 3 remaining spades between them, and other factors known, finesse or drop is a choice. There was a very high level play hand reported by Tony Forrester in the Daily Telegraph a week or two ago where a top-class declarer played against the odds for the drop in precisely this situation, and was wrong. So I think playing for the drop somewhat against the odds is definitely "normal".

The other case you mention is potentially quite different. Though there are circumstances when finessing into a stiff J could be a normal play, eg, if the J-holder had shown a 6-5 hand, and there was no re-entry to the xxx hand.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 11:37, said:

Must we? Which law says so? As I said upthread, I don't think we must or should assume anything.

You can like the word assume or not, but I mean just the same as Lamford who doesn't like it. By L70D1, we the TD rules as if the claimaint chooses the normal line that is least successful. In my use of English, the TD assumes that the claimant follows the normal line that is least successful. Means the same thing.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-23, 04:09, said:

This one, that you know well: 70D1

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.

Declarer does not get the benefit of successful lines of play not mentioned in his claim statement. TDs assume the claimaint chooses the unsuccessful line from among the normal lines of play, in relation to matters not specified in the claim statement. That is the sense in which TDs make assumptions when assessing faulty claims.

I am aware declarer said he will cash the SA. But he only said that in the belief that it was his 12th trick. Once it becomes his 11th trick, that statement is off, and we adjudicate in the normal way as if there were no claim statement. Declarers are allowed to pick up marked cards without mentioning it in their claim statement, if exposed by an opponent showing out. In the same way, once he discovers from the opponent showing out in clubs that his SA is only his 11th trick, then, if the SK had been marked, we would have allowed him to pick it up. Thus his statement that he will cash the SA is not irrevocable once the fault in his claim statement is exposed. Finessing is a normal line, and is the unsuccessful one. So we let him take it and fail.

Lamford is right, it's 2 off.

My guess is that if you poll a significant number of players from the same "class of players" as this player apparently is, giving them the position just after having successfully finessed with the ♠Q and telling them that they only need one more trick in spades together with the tricks they have in their own hand, then you will discover that a surprisingly high number of them will more or less automatically cash the ♠A right away and then return to their own hand for the remaining tricks.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2010-December-22, 17:02, said:

I am not at all sure about this. Whereas a declarer who sees East drop the king of spades under the ace will not "normally" fail to notice that the jack of spades is therefore a winner, a declarer who claims on the basis that he has "twelve top tricks" may "normally" fail to notice that his fifth club isn't good even though West shows out on the first round of clubs.

But what has that to do with anything? Waffle about declarer finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, so that repeating the spade finesse has become "normal play" even though declarer explicitly said that he would not do it, is... well, it is waffle. So is waffle to the effect that declarer, on finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, is "luckily" forced by his statement not to repeat the spade finesse.

<snip>This is why the only rational Law relating to claims reads as follows:

Law 68C

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which
the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. In adjudicating a claim, any cards not explicitly covered by this statement will be adjudged by the Director to be played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer's side, and the score adjusted accordingly (in the absence of any statement, all cards belonging to the claimer's side are so treated).

It will be noted that once this suggestion is adopted, the Law that follows it will be the present Law 72. What is good for bridge is also good for the rain forest. Meanwhile, declarer is down at least three (two for being incompetent and one for wasting police time) - but since he probably doesn't exist, he probably won't mind.

What has that to do with anything? Waffle about a ridiculous change to the laws which will be seized on by every Secretary Bird in defence, to the detriment of the game is ... well, it is waffle. In the 2020 Burn Laws of Bridge, which will certainly not lead to the game being played at the same speed as 20-20 Cricket, the claim will become a thing of the past, so we won't need 68C either. A declarer who claims with AKQ AKQ AKJ AKQJ opposite J1098 J10 Q109 10985, stating only that he has 13 top tricks, will fail in his 7NT contract if the opposing clubs are 4-1, but make it if they are not. In fact he can go four off, losing two clubs and two diamonds, if the cards lie unfavourably.

The TD, on finding out that the game is actually being played under the imperfect but workable current Laws, is "luckily" forced to rule two off in the current claim.

It is true that two directors may well rule differently under the current Laws, but then two umpires may well rule differently in cricket. That is why we have ACs in bridge, and third umpires (or technology) in cricket.

The two issues here are indeed value judgements. Will it be a "normal" line to not notice that clubs do not break? 71E1 in particular implies that declarer will notice. It implies that declarer will notice the fall of the king of spades, but declarer is deemed not to cash the ace because an alternative "normal" line of playing a club and then later taking a spade finesse is unsuccessful. It is important to get these value judgements right, as, if West had begun with Kx of spades, but clubs were 5-0, I believe we award RR his contract.

So, yes, we do have to judge what is "normal". But there is plenty of case law to help us and foil the hovering Sagittarius Serpentius.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:11, said:

What has that to do with anything? Waffle about a ridiculous change to the laws which will be seized on by every Secretary Bird in defence, to the detriment of the game is ... well, it is waffle. In the 2020 Burn Laws of Bridge, which will certainly not lead to the game being played at the same speed as 20-20 Cricket, the claim will become a thing of the past, so we won't need 68C either. A declarer who claims with AKQ AKQ AKJ AKQJ opposite J1098 J10 Q109 10985, stating only that he has 13 top tricks, will fail in his 7NT contract if the opposing clubs are 4-1, but make it if they are not. In fact he can go four off, losing two clubs and two diamonds, if the cards lie unfavourably.

The TD, on finding out that the game is actually being played under the imperfect but workable current Laws, is "luckily" forced to rule two off in the current claim.

It is true that two directors may well rule differently under the current Laws, but then two umpires may well rule differently in cricket. That is why we have ACs in bridge, and third umpires (or technology) in cricket.

The two issues here are indeed value judgements. Will it be a "normal" line to not notice that clubs do not break? 71E1 in particular implies that declarer will notice. It implies that declarer will notice the fall of the king of spades, but declarer is deemed not to cash the ace because an alternative "normal" line of playing a club and then later taking a spade finesse is unsuccessful. It is important to get these value judgements right, as, if West had begun with Kx of spades, but clubs were 5-0, I believe we award RR his contract.

So, yes, we do have to judge what is "normal". But there is plenty of case law to help us and foil the hovering Sagittarius Serpentius.

Of course, players will be required to claim more carefully than they do at present if they want to be awarded the tricks that are rightfully theirs. In fact, they will be required to claim as they are legally required to claim at present but do not, because this "case law" of which you speak means that in most cases they are not penalized (sorry, do not undergo rectification) for failing to make the kind of claim statement that the present Law 68C demands.

In the example you give above, declarer will need to delay the progress of the game for as long as it takes him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards. So what? The kind of thinking that requires him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards is precisely the kind of thinking that should be encouraged, because it will lead to fewer bum claims (indeed, in the limit it will lead to none whatsoever without actually slowing down the progress of the game very much at all).

The analogy with the third umpire at cricket, or with the use of technology in sport in general, is simply false. An AC is required to make exactly the same kind of "value judgement" as a Director, without the aid of technology and without the aid of clearly-defined Laws. The question "did the ball cross the line?" is capable of better resolution with the aid of technology; the question "is it normal to try to cash the fifth club when West shows out on the first?" is not. The substitution of an AC's ruling for a Director's ruling does nothing to advance the belief that the ruling is correct, unlike the substitution of a third umpire's ruling for that of the umpire on the field.

Law 71E1 does not exist, and Law 70E1 is as far as I can see not relevant. But since neither of them would exist under Burn's 68th Law, this does not actually matter very much.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2010-December-24, 15:54, said:

In the example you give above, declarer will need to delay the progress of the game for as long as it takes him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards. So what? The kind of thinking that requires him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards is precisely the kind of thinking that should be encouraged <snip>

I would expect every declarer to claim in the example I gave without giving any thought to the ridiculous notion that he would lose a trick by normal play. The kind of thinking which requires him to cash the jack of diamonds should be reserved for problems. But you are entitled to your opinion; it will be interesting to see if you have any support for the view that the Law should be changed such that the correct ruling is that 7NT fails when clubs are 4-1 (assuming that declarer has not specified a line of play, of course).

[dburn]

lamford, on 2010-December-24, 17:31, said:

I would expect every declarer to claim in the example I gave without giving any thought to the ridiculous notion that he would lose a trick by normal play. The kind of thinking which requires him to cash the jack of diamonds should be reserved for problems. But you are entitled to your opinion; it will be interesting to see if you have any support for the view that the Law should be changed such that the correct ruling is that 7NT fails when clubs are 4-1 (assuming that declarer has not specified a line of play, of course).

Unlikely. After all, there has unaccountably been little public support for my equally sensible suggestion that the penalty for a revoke should be death, so that sooner or later bridge would come to be played only by people who could follow suit and there would be no one left to moan about the fact that the current revoke law is inequitable.

However, I am entirely serious when I say this: people who claim should follow Law 68C in terms of stating far more exactly than they do at the moment the number of tricks they are claiming and the order of play that will lead to making those tricks. If they do not follow that Law (which is in the current code, not the Burn Laws of 2020), then they should expect to be ruled against far more often and far more severely than at present.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2010-December-24, 15:54, said:

Law 71E1 does not exist, and Law 70E1 is as far as I can see not relevant. But since neither of them would exist under Burn's 68th Law, this does not actually matter very much.

Yes, 70E1 was intended. And its relevance is that the TD will allow declarer to be aware (in our original example) that East has the ten or nine of clubs remaining when West showed out on the first club.

A simple example where the current Laws allow an unstated line, but you might not, is when declarer, with no outside losers, and a trump suit of AKQ10x opposite xxxx states "drawing trumps". 70E1 will allow him to pick up Jxxx underneath the AKQ10 because the person over the declarer will show out on the first round. I would hope that you would give declarer the contract if he had AQ10x opposite K9xxx and he stated "drawing trumps starting with the ace". Although here he has not stated a line of play, nor even indicated how he will play the suit, but we know what he means. Your new wording would still cause him to lose a trick, of course.

So, 70E1 suggests that the definition of normal is, by some players' standards, fairly advanced. Yet when it comes to a missing trump, the Laws assume that declarer may overlook it. Yet there is no contradiction, as, if the only normal line involves drawing that trump (say it is his only entry to dummy), declarer is deemed to do so. Where I would agree with you is that "normal" is not defined sensibly in the Laws, and we are left with case law to decide what it means. And I am sure the claim law can be improved, but not in such a drastic way as you suggest.