[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2016-April-06, 08:11, said:

When the claim statement breaks down (in terms of its linguistic rather than bridge logic) then it seems sensible to revert to how you would rule in the absence of a statement, ...

It is possible to rule that the bridge logic of this claim "break down" when East would play the small trump.

Then we might apply the WBFLC minute:

WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#3 said:

When there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid.

[sanst]

axman, on 2016-April-06, 08:33, said:

Considering what claimer said:

"Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..."

Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

For someone who can't even count to 13, it's certainly a very reasonable line of play to take the first trick with the ace, lead a small trump and getting confused the moment E plays the two. Now the Rabbit knows that he has made a mistake and, being not a complete fool, he must decide to finesse or not. W has only five cards in other suits than clubs, E 12. That makes a finesse a far better line of play than to play the hearts 1-1. Besides, weak players usually take a finesse whether necessary or not. So my decision is -1.
You shouldn't accept a line of play that a declarer gives, if it's based on a false assumption, but go for the worst that is normal for the class of player concerned.
If in any way your attention is drawn to the use of UI by S, a PP is in order. If you discover also that SB makes a habit of bidding quickly after the Stop card is removed with a more or less worthless hand, and meticulously waiting 10 secs with a better one, you finally have a valid reason to ban him forever as a cheat.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2016-April-06, 09:06, said:

It is possible to rule that the bridge logic of this claim "break down" when East would play the small trump.

Then we might apply the WBFLC minute:

So, would we be ruling that East's failure to show out is an irregularity?

[Manastorm]

axman, on 2016-April-06, 08:33, said:

Considering what claimer said:

"Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..."

Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

It is for claimer's benefit that he wakes up at the moment king of ♥ doesn't show up. I am not sure whether I am reminding the obvious or not, but there have been examples where waking up is mandatory when the claim and the facts are in conflict. As far as I understand the only reason for it is claimer's benefit.

[weejonnie]

"and it seeemed to South, one of the club's weakest members, that North was thinking of bidding."

"After a jump bid, the next player MUST pause for about ten seconds before calling. It is an offence either not to pause or to show indifference when pausing. If the Stop card has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly. " - EBU Blue Book (2015), which I believe applies in North London (and at the Griffins/ Unicorn)

So SB HAS to give the appearance of thinking of bidding.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-April-06, 09:51, said:

So, would we be ruling that East's failure to show out is an irregularity?

In Grattanese, irregularity has more than one meaning. I think the WBFLC minute means that when the claim statement includes a false statement, such as "there is only one trump out", or "I will ruff a diamond in dummy", when the contract is 7NT, then that part of the claim is irregular.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-06, 11:21, said:

"and it seeemed to South, one of the club's weakest members, that North was thinking of bidding."

"After a jump bid, the next player MUST pause for about ten seconds before calling. It is an offence either not to pause or to show indifference when pausing. If the Stop card has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly. " - EBU Blue Book (2015), which I believe applies in North London (and at the Griffins/ Unicorn)

So SB HAS to give the appearance of thinking of bidding.

He maintained his same impassive countenance in the bidding as he has always done, so one could not tell from his demeanour whether he was thinking of bidding.

[lamford]

Manastorm, on 2016-April-06, 10:30, said:

It is for claimer's benefit that he wakes up at the moment king of ♥ doesn't show up. I am not sure whether I am reminding the obvious or not, but there have been examples where waking up is mandatory when the claim and the facts are in conflict. As far as I understand the only reason for it is claimer's benefit.

Where do you get the idea that it is for claimer's benefit? On the contrary, it can be to his disadvantage to wake up, if that is a normal line.

[mycroft]

Heh, IRL (okay, in the Real Mollo Story), RR would win the ♣A and lead a low heart. Seeing East's discard of the ♦2, he'd put up the A, dropping the K. In fact, he'd have miscounted by 2 trumps, but since the side suit winners were right, East's ♥3 falls under the forced ruff in RR's hand. Papa would wonder indignantly how he managed to work out to drop the stiff K, only to be told that 8+3 is 12 - no, wait...

[Manastorm]

lamford, on 2016-April-06, 12:00, said:

Where do you get the idea that it is for claimer's benefit? On the contrary, it can be to his disadvantage to wake up, if that is a normal line.

I consider waking up and what happens consequently separate issues.

[lamford]

Manastorm, on 2016-April-06, 15:13, said:

I consider waking up and what happens consequently separate issues.

Not relevant. All we have to choose is the worse of the two normal lines for the declarer, whether awake or asleep. The laws do not distinguish between a claimant who is asleep and one who is awake.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2016-April-05, 07:43, said:

MP pairs.There was an interesting claim ruling at a recent North London Club duplicate. North, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, took his full 10 seconds to pass over 4C, even though West had withdrawn the stop card early, and it seeemed to South, one of the club's weakest members, that North was thinking of bidding. He gambled, quite unethically, with a wild leap to 6♥ and SB decided to add a seventh - after all it could scarcely be worse than a heart hook into the long club suit.West led a top club and RR claimed. His statement was "Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out - and six tricks in the side suits". West protested that the king of hearts was not the only trump out, and the TD was called. SB was quick to guide him. "The rabbit clearly thought he had twelve hearts", he stated. "And even for someone of his class, if you can find someone that bad, to finesse when there is only one out would be irrational". "I don't agree", replied West, "RR might win the club in dummy and lead a heart and when East follows to the first round of hearts with a small one, not the king, RR might reconsider and play the pre-emptor for the shorter hearts and finesse". How would you rule? Most of the other pairs were in 6H=, although a couple had dropped the king of hearts and made 6H+1.

---

IMO, the director should impose a rational but unsuccessful line, consistent with the Rabbit's claim statement: win ♣A, lead a ♥ and, when East turns up with a ♥ that is not the expected ♥K, take the losing finesse.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-April-06, 18:57, said:

IMO, the director should impose a rational but unsuccessful line, consistent with the Rabbit's claim statement: win ♣A, lead a ♥ and, when East turns up with a ♥ that is not the expected ♥K, take the losing finesse.

At first I thought this was wrong, as it seems wrong that the ruling is based on the actual lie of the cards rather than interpreting claimaint's statement. So if the honors are split he's forced to take the losing finesse, while if East has Kx he's forced to play for the drop.

But now it looks like this is pretty much what 70D1 says:

Quote

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 if we decide that the original statement does not really state whether he's going to finesse or play for the drop, then both of them would be considered normal. And the above says that he's not allowed to refine his statement to include the line that would have been successful, so we impose the unsuccessful line.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-April-07, 10:20, said:

So if we decide that the original statement does not really state whether he's going to finesse or play for the drop, then both of them would be considered normal. And the above says that he's not allowed to refine his statement to include the line that would have been successful, so we impose the unsuccessful line.

That is precisely the correct understanding of Law 70

[StevenG]

It seems clear to me that his claim statement says he will play the Ace on the first round of trumps.

[pran]

StevenG, on 2016-April-07, 11:17, said:

It seems clear to me that his claim statement says he will play the Ace on the first round of trumps.

If he leads from the Ace to the first round of trumps then his claim is good.

But if he leads towards the Ace then his claim statement breaks down on discovering that there is another outstanding trump in addition to the King. In that case he is in territory of an incomplete claim statement and should be ruled to select the unfortunate alternative of playing East for both outstanding trumps, i.e. West will win with his single King.

And if he claims before showing (stating) whether he will win the first trick in Dummy or in his hand he should be ruled to win with the Ace, resulting in a ruling of down 1.

[lamford]

The TD did rule one down, and indeed he ruled making 7 in the other thread. I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

[ahydra]

lamford, on 2016-April-08, 03:40, said:

I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

Your posts are an entertaining way to highlight deficiencies in the wording of the Laws. But while you've certainly shown yourself to be very familiar with the Laws, I don't think one needs to insult other posters in the thread who might not be as well-read on the Laws as yourself, or who disagree with you.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2016-April-08, 04:41, said:

Your posts are an entertaining way to highlight deficiencies in the wording of the Laws. But while you've certainly shown yourself to be very familiar with the Laws, I don't think one needs to insult other posters in the thread who might not be as well-read on the Laws as yourself, or who disagree with you.

ahydra

I apologise. It was intended to be light-hearted.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2016-April-08, 03:40, said:

The TD did rule one down, and indeed he ruled making 7 in the other thread. I think that some of the posters who got these two wrong should go on one of the excellent Club Director courses run by the EBU.

IMO if that is a correct ruling, it goes a long way to explaining why some players are reluctant to claim.