[Vampyr]

jdonn, on Feb 10 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

bluejak, on Feb 10 2010, 07:56 AM, said:

The trouble with josh's point is it ignores the claim statement.  When declarer says "I have to give you ..." there is a strong inference that if he had played it out he would have played the loser next.

There are two problems with that.

One is that I completely disagree with the inference that "I have to give you" means "I have to give you now" rather than "I have to give you ultimately".

I agree. Normally the loser is deemed to be given at the last trick. In fact if the opponents ask for a line of play, declarer will usually say something like "I am going to cash x, y and z and give you w at the end."

[mycroft]

Odd - when it matters, I do say "I'll give you a spade *at the end*" or "I can't get around the club loser". When it doesn't, I don't - and I don't think there's any implication as to when I'll do it. I think I'm that particular about this phrase in my claims because I was nailed by it at one point...

[bluejak]

mich-b, on Feb 10 2010, 04:00 PM, said:

A question to David:
Would you rule "5♥ just made" if dummy's ♠s were only the J rather than J7?
It seems to me that Josh would still rule "down 1".

Yes.

jdonn, on Feb 10 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

One is that I completely disagree with the inference that "I have to give you" means "I have to give you now" rather than "I have to give you ultimately". It seems to me like another way of saying "I can't avoid losing a...". You are making an unwarranted assumption.

Ok, but I am not going to assume it means at the end either. So losing one now and at the end are both normal lines, so we give the defence a trick.

[jdonn]

The part after "so" (that playing spades either now or later is normal) doesn't follow from the part before it (that we can't be sure exactly what declarer's statement meant), and also ignores the second point I made (that the only reason declarer could have to play a spade now would be to claim anyway).

That's not to say playing a spade now definitely isn't normal, but if you were playing the hand out to the end why wouldn't you run all your winners first just in case?

[bluejak]

That is not the point. Of course, running your winners is a 'normal' play, but that does not mean conceding a trick immediately is not. Players do it all the time - and in fact we know that the intent of the claimer was to concede the trick. So running all the winners hoping someone will go wrong was not what the claimer was intending, and we know from his claim statement that a 'normal' play was to give up a trick.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Feb 10 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

Of course, running your winners is a 'normal' play, but that does not mean conceding a trick immediately is not. Players do it all the time - and in fact we know that the intent of the claimer was to concede the trick.

Consider that perhaps was his intent because only if claiming. My point is you have reason to believe that's not what he would do if he played the hand out.

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

[ICEmachine]

Well

It sees we have to decide the differnce between saying:

I will give you a spade

and

I have to give you a spade


It seem the latter gives us more alternatives, but if its wide enough to consider he would always play the J isnt quite clear to me.
I guess I will just agree with the best english speaking person here

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Feb 11 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play. Furthermore, I am sick of people playing winners out to the end, so that's a normal play.

ICEmachine, on Feb 11 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

I guess I will just agree with the best english speaking person here   

Where is Peter Eidt when you need him?


<shush>


<very very quietly>


In San Remo he said he had been sent with no warning a White book, and had read 150 pages before he said "That's enough!". Hopefully he is currently reading the other 77 pages.

[barmar]

The way I personally try to avoid getting into this situation is to phrase my claim in the form of a conditional, something like "I think there's still a high spade out, so I have to give that to you." If there isn't, I expect the opponents to correct me and not take the trick. Or if I'm conceding all the remaining tricks, "I don't think I can take any more tricks."

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Feb 11 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play.

Actually this is something I've wondered before so maybe it's a question for another thread. Can the director enforce a "line of play" on someone that includes a later claim? Like in this case where you say it's a normal play to make some play and then claim, I think it's a normal thing to do but I don't think a claim is a play at all. In fact I think it's not by definition. But I wondered if there is any official guidance on this.

[blackshoe]

If a player has a losing spade, and the rest of his cards are winners, then it could well be normal for that player to give up the spade, and then win the rest of the tricks. There is in such a case no need to "rule" that he would claim.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 11 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

If a player has a losing spade, and the rest of his cards are winners, then it could well be normal for that player to give up the spade, and then win the rest of the tricks. There is in such a case no need to "rule" that he would claim.

But what do you mean by "win"? I am arguing it is normal to lose a spade then claim the rest of the tricks, but it is (maybe) not normal to lose a spade then play off the rest of the tricks one by one.

Even if you disagree with me on that it could potentially be a director's judgment, so it seems important to know whether or not he is allowed to include a claim as part of a line of play in order to determine normalcy. I feel he is not allowed to but I'm open to feedback on that. Saying there is no need to answer that question is not inherently true.

[blackshoe]

Normal for whom? I've seen players do it, so it's certainly normal for somebody.

I didn't say there is no need to discuss the question whether a TD may rule that a player would claim at some point. I said that there's no need for the TD to rule that way. Different question, or so it seems to me.

If there has been no claim or concession, so that we are adjusting a score under Law 12, I don't see any TD bring a claim or concession into the discussion - the law tells us to, in effect, decide how many tricks each side would take if the hand were played out. In the case of a claim, where the TD is called on to decide which lines of play (consistent with the claimer's clarification statement) are "normal", there is again no suggestion in law, and no need in practice, for the TD to rule that a player would claim when he has the rest of the tricks.

Before you made this suggestion, Josh, it would never have occurred to me to include "at this point the player will claim" in a ruling. In answer to your question, I don't think a TD is permitted to do that, in law. I don't see a basis for it. And IAC, as I said, there's no need for him to do so.

[Chris3875]

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, Yes, South CAN concede and give you trick, but are you going to take it? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

[Mbodell]

bluejak, on Feb 11 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 11 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

Think of it this way. There are only two thought processes anyone has when they have a bunch of winners and one loser. Either they run the winners and hope the opponents make a mistake and the loser ends up being good. Or they give up the loser and claim (giving up the loser could equivalently come either before the claim or as part of the claim). If there is a player that gives up the loser and then runs all the winners to the end I haven't met him, but it seems to me that's the line of play you want to consider "normal".

Now, based on my experience, some players give up the trick and then claim, so that's a normal play. Furthermore, I am sick of people playing winners out to the end, so that's a normal play.

Ok, but what about this only very slightly different and related hand:

Scoring: MP

---

South is on lead as declarer in 5♥ and has lost two tricks. At this point she claims, saying "I have to give you a spade." It is clear to everyone that South knows there are no more trumps out, but thinks there is a top spade honour at large.

It is certainly possible for N/S to lose a spade if they take jdonn's proposed line of running hearts pitching spades hoping to have a defender drop the "missing" spade honor and thus will lose the ♠4 to the east player. But if we take the bluejak argument that normal play means they lose their "loser" in spades right away then they will not lose the spade.

Do the N/S in the OP and this only slightly modified N/S get a different ruling to the number of tricks they take? Is the "normal" play the same for both of them?

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Feb 12 2010, 01:44 AM, said:

Do the N/S in the OP and this only slightly modified N/S get a different ruling to the number of tricks they take?  Is the "normal" play the same for both of them?

There is no "the" normal play. There can easily be more than one normal line of play, and in a case of 4 winners and 1 loser probably just about any order of plays is normal.

[VixTD]

Chris3875, on Feb 11 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, Yes, South CAN concede and give you trick, but are you going to take it? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

I was called while the room was in the middle of moving for the next round. EW were obviously half joking, and didn't expect (or possibly want) to get a trick. This might have contributed to my initial reaction, which was to tell the players to score it as 5♥ = while I thought about it. After some quiet reflection later on I realised how wrong I had been and amended my ruling to 5♥-1.

If EW really didn't want the trick they shouldn't have called me. If they really had been joking when they called me and didn't want the trick, they could have asked me not to give them the trick and I could have acceded to their request (law 81C5). What I feel uncomfortable with is saying something like (paraphrasing Chris's suggestion for effect): "You can insist on having that trick if you really think that's the way the game should be played, otherwise I'll award it to declarer."

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on Feb 12 2010, 02:57 PM, said:

What I feel uncomfortable with is saying something like (paraphrasing Chris's suggestion for effect): "You can insist on having that trick if you really think that's the way the game should be played, otherwise I'll award it to declarer."

I agree. A director should never make it seem that accepting an application of law is somehow poor sportsmanship or unethical.

[barmar]

Mbodell, on Feb 12 2010, 01:44 AM, said:

It is certainly possible for N/S to lose a spade if they take jdonn's proposed line of running hearts pitching spades hoping to have a defender drop the "missing" spade honor and thus will lose the ♠4 to the east player. But if we take the bluejak argument that normal play means they lose their "loser" in spades right away then they will not lose the spade.

But if that line of play even entered declarer's mind, he wouldn't have made the claim in the first place, so I wouldn't consider it consistent with the claim statement (except maybe if it's just an overtrick in a friendly game, but then there's not likely to be a director call).

Sometimes when I'm certain the opponents know what's in my hand (I've shown out in all the side suits) and there's no squeeze on, I'll concede a trick with the explanation "I don't think you're throwing away the heart ace", but that doesn't seem to be the case in these examples.

That brings up a question: suppose I was wrong that there's no squeeze. If the player with the ace would have been squeeze out of it, should he dispute the claim and should the TD award the trick? Probably only if the squeeze is automatic, and any line that doesn't squeeze him would require giving up even more tricks than he'd conceded.

[Chris3875]

Quote

Something seems not quite ethical about EW accepting the concession to me - I get the sense from their question to the TD that they knew S was going to take the rest of the tricks on a "normal" line of play. So, I would answer the question, "Yes, South CAN concede and give you a trick, but are you going to take it?"

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't.

Sorry, the last sentence in my reply was directed to "you guys" here in the forum - I wouldn't say that to the players.