[blackshoe]

mjj29, on Apr 9 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

We resolve 'doubtful points in favour of the non-offending side'.

No we don't.

Law 70A; in part said:

any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.

There is no offending or non-offending side in a claim.

[jdonn]

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.

So if you claim with AJx opposite KTx because you thought all your cards were high the director should award you all the tricks half the time depending where the queen is? I don't think so...

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on Apr 9 2010, 03:40 PM, said:

mjj29, on Apr 9 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

We resolve 'doubtful points in favour of the non-offending side'.

No we don't.

Law 70A; in part said:

any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.

There is no offending or non-offending side in a claim.

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 04:53 PM, 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.

If you think it ridiculous then do not make silly claims.

Do you think it fair and equitable that your opponent makes a bad claim and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt? I don't and nor do the Laws. But you have to go one way or the other: are you going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has done nothing wrong, or to someone who has done something wrong?

No, it is not ridiculous that if you make a mistake you should suffer. What is ridiculous is that if the opponents make a mistake you should suffer.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

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.

So if you claim with AJx opposite KTx because you thought all your cards were high the director should award you all the tricks half the time depending where the queen is? I don't think so...

No, but at least I believe I deserve 3 tricks when the queen is doubleton. not that director always forces me to finese the wrong direction wich its not fair. If I claim because they are high, then I play the highest first.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 08:43 PM, said:

If I claim because they are high, then I play the highest first.

Then when you claim you should say so.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 08:43 PM, said:

If I claim because they are high, then I play the highest first.

Then when you claim you should say so.

... but in this specific example, the claimer said so. Her claim statement included "cash 2 top diamonds", yet...

[campboy]

shyams, on Apr 11 2010, 07:05 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 04:43 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Apr 9 2010, 08:43 PM, said:

If I claim because they are high, then I play the highest first.

Then when you claim you should say so.

... but in this specific example, the claimer said so. Her claim statement included "cash 2 top diamonds", yet...

And if she had said "cash two top diamonds, then pitch two clubs on diamonds" I would give her all the tricks. But the line she stated had an impossible play before that, so she would not get that far. When declarer states a line which is impossible, it is normal to evaluate the claim on the basis that she will notice at the point it becomes impossible to follow, and change her line accordingly. This approach normally works to declarer's benefit, but here there are too many "normal" lines and we cannot be sure what she would have done.