[c_corgi]

Declarer has no more stated an intention to take two tricks (his queens) than he has stated an intention to contribute the ♦10 to the next trick. He has simply accepted the inevitable cashing of the 13th spade, a consequence of which is that he will make the last two tricks. I agree with chrism: it makes no sense to interpret declarers statement in the light of the 13th spade not being cashed. It feels like lamford is right and the finesse is now obligatory, although as is often the case when lamford is right, it is not what I would intuitively consider fair!

The missing spade is interesting. Is declarer obliged to assume that the missing spade is with North if doing so would cause him to go wrong? After all, he doesn't believe it has been played and it would not be irrational to assume that South would have cashed it if he had it - although it would mean something strange had happened in the auction.

[PhilKing]

Which bit of "he claimed two off" are we not getting here?

If he needed to take a successful view to secure two off, then we would rule against him, but he doesn't - he has two top tricks (and three on the lie).

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-17, 06:14, said:

Which bit of "he claimed two off" are we not getting here?

The bit starting with the opponents cashing the fourteenth spade. When a claim breaks down because it is not possible, we revert to selecting the worst normal line for declarer. Mind you there is one director who selected the worst normal line for declarer when a defender claimed.

[MickyB]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-17, 06:14, said:

Which bit of "he claimed two off" are we not getting here?

If he needed to take a successful view to secure two off, then we would rule against him, but he doesn't - he has two top tricks (and three on the lie).

What would your ruling be if declarer had said "I'll have the last two tricks"?

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-June-17, 07:33, said:

The bit starting with the opponents cashing the fourteenth spade. When a claim breaks down because it is not possible, we revert to selecting the worst normal line for declarer. Mind you there is one director who selected the worst normal line for declarer when a defender claimed.

Declarer claime two off - he never said he was losing a spade. His claim never broke down, and correct me if I'm wrong but he has a 100% line to avoid 3 off.

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2014-June-17, 07:57, said:

What would your ruling be if declarer had said "I'll have the last two tricks"?

Up one. It's just nonsense to believe he would deliberately lose trick eleven in order to save his winners for tricks 12 and 13.

Unless he said "I am deliberately going to stab myself in the face", I would give him his three top tricks.

[Bbradley62]

sfi, on 2014-June-17, 00:52, said:

He did claim the two queens. From the original post: "with the 2 minor suit queens taking the last two tricks"

He did not claim the two queens. You left off the first half of the sentence. He claimed two tricks, (silently) expecting those two tricks to be his two queens. See OP's post #6 for a confirmation of this.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-17, 17:18, said:

Up one. It's just nonsense to believe he would deliberately lose trick eleven in order to save his winners for tricks 12 and 13.

Unless he said "I am deliberately going to stab myself in the face", I would give him his three top tricks.

Irrelevant. The Laws tell us that the Director proceeds as follows:
<snip> 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.

There was no clarification statement. In order to make two tricks the declarer needs to rise with the queen of diamonds on the diamond return. Is there an alternative normal line? Yes, finessing is certainly normal, and is less successful on this layout. Therefore only one trick to declarer. There is no need to get inside the mind of the declarer. You just proceed as you are told to by Law 70. And "shall not" is pretty strong.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2014-June-13, 11:17, said:

Suppose you are on the AC. How do you assess this one?

Thank you, Jallerton, for the educational open poll. It would be more interesting if more people voted, especially the likes of bluejak, blackshoe, gordontd, pran, franceshinden and jallerton.

[blackshoe]

I have to agree with Lamford. I would say to declarer "The laws require you to state a line of play. The laws require the director to assess alternative normal, which includes careless or inferior, lines to see if the claim fails. You didn't state a line of play, so any normal line which fails causes the claim to fail. Taking the diamond finesse is normal. Two tricks to the defense."

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2014-June-17, 21:01, said:

Thank you, Jallerton, for the educational open poll. It would be more interesting if more people voted, especially the likes of bluejak, blackshoe, gordontd, pran, franceshinden and jallerton.

This case is a live appeal to the national authority, in which context I've given my opinion, so it doesn't seem appropriate for me to say anything else at this stage. A couple of others in your list may also be in the same position.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-June-18, 00:16, said:

This case is a live appeal to the national authority, in which context I've given my opinion, so it doesn't seem appropriate for me to say anything else at this stage. A couple of others in your list may also be in the same position.

What was the result of the original appeal?

[nige1]

More random comments

jallerton, on 2014-June-13, 11:17, said:

The TD is called (by dummy)

IMO that's OK because declarer's claim terminates play.

sfi, on 2014-June-17, 00:52, said:

He did claim the two queens. From the original post: "with the 2 minor suit queens taking the last two tricks"

jallerton, on 2014-June-14, 16:07, said:

Declarer's claim statement was simply "two off". You can debate what this claim statement implies, but that it is all he said at the point when he claimed.

Jallerton confirms that, at the time, declarer didn't state a line, explicitly.

gordontd, on 2014-June-18, 00:16, said:

This case is a live appeal to the national authority, in which context I've given my opinion, so it doesn't seem appropriate for me to say anything else at this stage. A couple of others in your list may also be in the same position.

Fair enough. Exciting stuff

[gnasher]

Expensive stuff, usually.

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2014-June-17, 21:01, said:

Thank you, Jallerton, for the educational open poll. It would be more interesting if more people voted, especially the likes of bluejak, blackshoe, gordontd, pran, franceshinden and jallerton.

I posted this case because I thought people might find it interesting. Do you expect me to vote in my own poll? It's fascinating that a claim in a 3-card ending can generate such passionate but differing views.

gordontd, on 2014-June-18, 00:16, said:

This case is a live appeal to the national authority, in which context I've given my opinion, so it doesn't seem appropriate for me to say anything else at this stage. A couple of others in your list may also be in the same position.

Sorry, it's probably not good practice to post 'live' appeals, but normally when an AC has made it decision the case is no longer considered to be 'live'. Perhaps 'resurrected' is a better description. I should probably point out that the facts being considered by the National Authority could be slightly different than those I have described: my informant had heard the facts from the players (the N/S and E/W versions agreed) rather than from the TD/AC.

c_corgi, on 2014-June-17, 01:01, said:

Declarer has no more stated an intention to take two tricks (his queens) than he has stated an intention to contribute the ♦10 to the next trick. He has simply accepted the inevitable cashing of the 13th spade, a consequence of which is that he will make the last two tricks. I agree with chrism: it makes no sense to interpret declarers statement in the light of the 13th spade not being cashed. It feels like lamford is right and the finesse is now obligatory, although as is often the case when lamford is right, it is not what I would intuitively consider fair!

The missing spade is interesting. Is declarer obliged to assume that the missing spade is with North if doing so would cause him to go wrong? After all, he doesn't believe it has been played and it would not be irrational to assume that South would have cashed it if he had it - although it would mean something strange had happened in the auction.

Yes, the missing spade is interesting. Suppose that South had retained the 13th spade, discarding a low club instead, the 3-card ending now being:

---

Again, with South on lead, declarer claims "2 off" without stating a line.

If South cashes the last spade, as declarer expects, then he does indeed make the last two tricks with his two queens. But suppose the defence object to the claim. South points out that if he plays a diamond through, declarer might finesse. If he does, North will win and play a club; declarer might finesse again. Does this mean that the TD should rule all three of the remaining tricks to the defence?

[c_corgi]

jallerton, on 2014-June-21, 09:53, said:

...
Again, with South on lead, declarer claims "2 off" without stating a line.

If South cashes the last spade, as declarer expects, then he does indeed make the last two tricks with his two queens. But suppose the defence object to the claim. South points out that if he plays a diamond through, declarer might finesse. If he does, North will win and play a club; declarer might finesse again. Does this mean that the TD should rule all three of the remaining tricks to the defence?

I hope that L70A would be interpreted so as to protect the claimer against such shenanigans. That South would - in real life - cash the spade is not a doubtful point, since declarer would otherwise be likely to make the rest of the tricks (in the actual position) and could have ♦QJ (in which case he would be guaranteed to do so).

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2014-June-21, 09:53, said:

I posted this case because I thought people might find it interesting. Do you expect me to vote in my own poll? It's fascinating that a claim in a 3-card ending can generate such passionate but differing views. Sorry, it's probably not good practice to post 'live' appeals, but normally when an AC has made it decision the case is no longer considered to be 'live'. Perhaps 'resurrected' is a better description.

IBLF posers seem fairly evenly split, which should auger well for a return of the deposit.

jallerton, on 2014-June-21, 09:53, said:

Yes, the missing spade is interesting. Suppose that South had retained the 13th spade, discarding a low club instead. [SNIP]... suppose the defence object to the claim. South points out that if he plays a diamond through, declarer might finesse. If he does, North will win and play a club; declarer might finesse again. Does this mean that the TD should rule all three of the remaining tricks to the defence?

Wow, we all missed that excellent point

[blackshoe]

"Posers"? Is that another nasty Britishism?

[PhilKing]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 17:40, said:

Wow, we all missed that excellent point

Speak for yourself.

[nige1]

PhilKing, on 2014-June-21, 17:56, said:

Speak for yourself.

blackshoe, on 2014-June-21, 17:44, said:

"Posers"? Is that another nasty Britishism?

Sorry, I was writing about posters