[manudude03]

Slovakia World Junior Bridge Camp 2006. Sorry I don't have all the spots, but the relevant cards are mentioned.

Scoring: MP

---

Contract is 6♥ by South. EW were silent in the auction. If relevant, East won the defence's trick with ♥A, West showed up with the ♣J. South requires the rest of the tricks to make the contract. She claims at this stage saying "throwing 2 diamonds on the clubs, cash 2 top diamonds and cross-ruff the rest".

Presumably she thought dummy's club was a spade. When I pointed out the club in dummy, she then goes on to say she doesn't think she's making it unless she finds ♦QJ tight, but admits that she may go for restricted choice if she saw an honour appear.

TD is then called. This took no less than 3 TDs to come to a decision (before ruling down 1). How would you rule?

[gwnn]

-1 wtp? it is not irrational to play ace of diamonds and finesse.

[jeremy69]

Agree with gwynn. Cash clubs, throwing a diamond then normal to play on diamonds and get them wrong. Can't imagine why it needed 3 TD's but doubtless we will find out! Did one or more think it was cash two clubs and then both trumps before playing on diamonds?

[Codo]

Well the counterposition is: Play ends after a claim.

She claimed to take two high clubs and two high diamonds.
Now she holds

♥xx
♦9

♥xx
♦T

There is no way to lose a trick now.

Why should it matter, what she said afterwards? It "never" matters if she forgot to state something and later tries to catch up, so why should it matter now?

I have no idea which position is correct, but I would understand a TD who would rule this way.

[greenender]

I was going to reply to Jeremy's post to say that declarer's statement (as to crossruffing at the end) precluded a ruling on the basis of cashing trumps, but then I noticed something rather more important.

When the claimer's statement is impossible to implement in its entirety, what do we do? Do we follow so much of it as we can until it breaks down, and then assess normal lines of play for however many tricks remain, treating such remaining elements of the claim as may be possible to implement as evidence of claimer's state of mind, but not as binding? Or do we implement as much of it as we can, regardless of whether it happens before or after the breakdown?

Given the requirement to do equity as far as possible to both sides, I believe the first must be correct.

Given that the statement breaks down at the first trick, as discarding a ♦ on a ♣ is a revoke, I think the director only follows the claim statement to the extent of cashing a ♣. Thereafter we are into unstated lines of play, so what claimer said about the ♦s only after the flaw in the claim was pointed out is irrelevant. Instead, the law requires a ruling on the basis that declarer does not get the ♦s right, notwithstanding that the claim statement included the cashing of two top ♦s. This is because declarer's play in the ♦ suit needing two tricks is not at all analogous to the normal play needing three.

However, I still regard the statement as to a crossruff as sufficient indication that to rule on the basis of cashing the trumps before getting the ♦s wrong would be too harsh.

Of course, if you follow as much of the claim statement as possible, regardless of the point of breakdown, the projected play is to cash two ♣s discarding one ♦, then cash two ♦s. The claim then breaks down irretrievably as there is nothing to crossruff, but hey, the third ♦ has come good so the contract makes.

So at then end, down one, wtp, but not without interest.

[blackshoe]

We are required to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers. We are also required to be as equitable as possible to both sides. I would like to give 50% of making, and 50% of down one, but of course that's not in the laws. So I guess I've got to rule down one, but I don't like it much.

[gordontd]

I think Greenender has the correct approach.

[Trinidad]

So this means we would have ruled 6♥ making if the original claim would have been:
"Cash top diamonds; cash top clubs, discarding two diamonds; cross-ruff." ?

Rik

[pgrice]

greenender, on Apr 8 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

When the claimer's statement is impossible to implement in its entirety, what do we do?  Do we follow so much of it as we can until it breaks down, and then assess normal lines of play for however many tricks remain, treating such remaining elements of the claim as may be possible to implement as evidence of claimer's state of mind, but not as binding?  Or do we implement as much of it as we can, regardless of whether it happens before or after the breakdown?

To my mind we should follow the claim statement as far as possible. Declarer has made a pretty unequivocal statement about the next 4 cards she intends to play. Of course she can't discard two diamonds from dummy but this doesn't prevent or preclude the play of the next 4 cards as in the claim statement.
Is there guidance on how far we should follow claim statements in cases like this?

[aguahombre]

Declarer herself recognized and admitted she might choose the restricted choice finesse in diamonds.

She didn't say which diamond she would play first; so the suit would fall into her lap half the time, and the option of restricted choice would occur half the time.

It would require two unlucky, but reasonable, plays to lose a trick. But, that is moot and we have to give the defense a trick, I think.

[Bbradley62]

There should be no "maybe" or "might" in a claim. Declarer loses for wafflling. Without the waffling, she would not have been allowed to take any finesses and she would have gotten lucky.

[pran]

Bbradley62, on Apr 8 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

There should be no "maybe" or "might" in a claim.  Declarer loses for wafflling.  Without the waffling, she would not have been allowed to take any finesses and she would have gotten lucky.

Sorry, that is a misinterpretation of Law 70E.

The claimer is not allowed to take an unstated successful finesse but nor is (s)he allowed to successfully drop the outstanding card when an unsuccessful finesse is "normal".

[mjj29]

pgrice, on Apr 8 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

To my mind we should follow the claim statement as far as possible.  Declarer has made a pretty unequivocal statement about the next 4 cards she intends to play.  Of course she can't discard two diamonds from dummy but this doesn't prevent or preclude the play of the next 4 cards as in the claim statement.
Is there guidance on how far we should follow claim statements in cases like this?

Yes, there is, you're looking for:

WB70.7 WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#3 said:

Suppose a player claims, and part of his claim is to discard a club on dummy’s diamond. Unfortunately he will have to follow suit at that time: how does the Director rule?
The revoke is not accepted by the Director, so he follows the claim statement up to the revoke, and then treats it as though there was no further statement. However, if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations. The same applies for any other irregularity embodied in a claim

and

WB70.8 WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#3 said:

Sometimes the deal would become clear if it were played out. At such times the Director does not assume a player would have taken a line that has become irrational by seeing the cards played.

In this case, it seems to me that declarer would immediately notice the problem when the first club in played and defence reject the revoke and will then take careless but not irrational lines which involve a cross-ruff, since that is a later parrt of the claim which appears valid. Given it's clearly at most careless (and possibly the percentage line) to play for split honours, I'd rule a diamond trick to defence.

[pgrice]

mjj29, on Apr 8 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

pgrice, on Apr 8 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

To my mind we should follow the claim statement as far as possible.  Declarer has made a pretty unequivocal statement about the next 4 cards she intends to play.  Of course she can't discard two diamonds from dummy but this doesn't prevent or preclude the play of the next 4 cards as in the claim statement.
Is there guidance on how far we should follow claim statements in cases like this?

Yes, there is, you're looking for:

WB70.7 WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#3 said:

Suppose a player claims, and part of his claim is to discard a club on dummy’s diamond. Unfortunately he will have to follow suit at that time: how does the Director rule?
The revoke is not accepted by the Director, so he follows the claim statement up to the revoke, and then treats it as though there was no further statement. However, if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations. The same applies for any other irregularity embodied in a claim

and

WB70.8 WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#3 said:

Sometimes the deal would become clear if it were played out. At such times the Director does not assume a player would have taken a line that has become irrational by seeing the cards played.

In this case, it seems to me that declarer would immediately notice the problem when the first club in played and defence reject the revoke and will then take careless but not irrational lines which involve a cross-ruff, since that is a later parrt of the claim which appears valid. Given it's clearly at most careless (and possibly the percentage line) to play for split honours, I'd rule a diamond trick to defence.

OK the guidance seems clear about not accepting the revoke and if we have nothing to go on it is clear to award a diamond trick to the defence ... but doesn't the statement about how diamonds will be played come under ...

Quote

if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations

Maybe we would follow it if it worked out badly for claimer.

[gnasher]

pgrice, on Apr 9 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

but doesn't the statement about how diamonds will be played come under ...

Quote

if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations

No. When declarer claimed, he wasn't planning to play for the diamond honours to drop: he was treating ♦10 as a small card and plannng to ruff it in dummy. That part of his plan has no bearing on the new situation in which he'll find himself, where he has to turn ♦10 into a winner.

[pgrice]

gnasher, on Apr 9 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

pgrice, on Apr 9 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

but doesn't the statement about how diamonds will be played come under ...

Quote

if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations

No. When declarer claimed, he wasn't planning to play for the diamond honours to drop: he was treating ♦10 as a small card and plannng to ruff it in dummy. That part of his plan has no bearing on the new situation in which he'll find himself, where he has to turn ♦10 into a winner.

OK - so we judge this as part of the underlying plan that the claim statement alludes to rather than a literal interpretation of DA then DK ...

[Fluffy]

She claimed, and at first didn't state anything about finesing.

Whatever she says after is irrelevant since the play is already over.

No fineses are allowed after a claim unless stated during the claim, and it wasn't stated there but later. So finese is not an option.



BTW, IMO you cannot penalice a player for saying I might, cos the read most are taking by declarer saying "I might do something" is you will do the worst for you in any case, it is much more fair to just ignore any statement that incluedes a "might", since claims don't include mights nor coulds nor anything like that.

[campboy]

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

No fineses are allowed after a claim unless stated during the claim, and it wasn't stated there but later. So finese is not an option.

This is not correct. What the law actually talks about is any line of play which rests on finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card; it does not use the word "finesse". Now once you have played a top diamond and an opponent follows with an honour, your choices are to play for that opponent having the other honour as well (the drop), or to play for the other opponent having the other honour (the finesse). So we "may not accept" either line of play from declarer -- ie, we cannot rule on the basis that either would have definitely happened. Thus we give the benefit of doubt to the defenders.

[Fluffy]

I don't know the rules but this is ridicoulous, the rules forcing you to go down regardless of the card position its not equity.

[mjj29]

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

I don't know the rules but this is ridicoulous, the rules forcing you to go down regardless of the card position its not equity.

Well, if claimer had said what he was doing then he would have got it right on that layout. Where he doesn't then we don't know how he will play the suit. If there's only one sensible way, of course we let declarer get it right, but where there are multiple ways to play, only one of which works, it's not fair on defence to let declarer get it right if he might not. We resolve 'doubtful points in favour of the non-offending side'.