[aguahombre]

Just out of curiosity, how does 70E2 fit in ---if the RA so designates "from top down"?

On the given hand, this would result in 9 tricks. And if the Diamond queen were onside, would we rule 8 tricks "from top down", or nine by requiring the finesse which is by far the most rational line, whether favorable to the offender or not?

Edit:
For those who might be confused, this is an offshoot of the "line of Play" thread; Bluejack actually moved posts here from that thread and titled it.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-08, 16:37

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-03, 14:34, said:

Just out of curiosity, how does 70E2 fit in ---if the RA so designates "from top down"?

On the given hand, this would result in 9 tricks. And if the Diamond queen were onside, would we rule 8 tricks "from top down", or nine by requiring the finesse which is by far the most rational line, whether favorable to the offender or not?

I have been asked to reply to this. Well, I will do my best. But first, please explain:

• The OP has no hand: what is the "given hand"?
  
• How does 70E2 fit in to what?

In answer to the inferred question as to why I did not answer it when it was first posted I think I did not understand it then either. But I shall do my best if you explain the surrounding to the questions asked.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 09:59, said:

I have been asked to reply to this. Well, I will do my best. But first, please explain:

• The OP has no hand: what is the "given hand"?
  
• How does 70E2 fit in to what?

In answer to the inferred question as to why I did not answer it when it was first posted I think I did not understand it then either. But I shall do my best if you explain the surrounding to the questions asked.

Sorry, for some reason I just assumed people knew the hand. Bad assumption since it was the ACBL Bulletin, not available to all.

The hand in the Bulletin was not posted here, and therefore shouldn't have been part of the discussion, but Flader's "ruling" involved Declarer claiming after winning a spade at trick one. He stated he had five clubs (true) and four diamonds (not true) for ten tricks.

The diamond holding was AKJX opposite XXX, and the QX was offside, so he decided declarer would finesse and go down 3.
The alternative of playing the suit from the top down, if the RA so decides (70E2), would be making 9 tricks.

Interesting (to me) was that the same hand held the five clubs and the AKJX of diamonds, and Flader decides Declarer would figure out his problem at some point while running the clubs, in time to stop and enter hand with a club to take the losing diamond finesse.

Declarer's statement about taking five clubs and four diamonds could be taken as the order of play, IMO; he would be stuck on board and could only play diamonds from top down for 3 tricks.

Sorry Bluejack, just noticed you were in the process of replying while I edited.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-08, 12:17

[bluejak]

I shall look at this when I have more time - probably in a separate thread since it seems irrelevant to this one. But I shall just point out before I dash out to go to bridge how annoying it is as a long time ACBL member that I do not receive the Bulletin unless I pay extra.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 12:02, said:

I shall look at this when I have more time - probably in a separate thread since it seems irrelevant to this one. But I shall just point out before I dash out to go to bridge how annoying it is as a long time ACBL member that I do not receive the Bulletin unless I pay extra.

I am pretty sure that there is an online version available to members. My membership has lapsed so I am unable to check but I recall checking with the ACBL in the past.

[blackshoe]

Go to "my ACBL", log in, and click the Bridge Bulletin Online link.

[bluejak]

I appreciate that, but I am old-fashioned: to me a magazine is made of paper.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

I appreciate that, but I am old-fashioned: to me a magazine is made of paper.

And so it will be if you print it out!

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-08, 10:37, said:

The hand in the Bulletin was not posted here, and therefore shouldn't have been part of the discussion, but Flader's "ruling" involved Declarer claiming after winning a spade at trick one. He stated he had five clubs (true) and four diamonds (not true) for ten tricks.

The diamond holding was AKJX opposite XXX, and the QX was offside, so he decided declarer would finesse and go down 3.
The alternative of playing the suit from the top down, if the RA so decides (70E2), would be making 9 tricks.

Interesting (to me) was that the same hand held the five clubs and the AKJX of diamonds, and Flader decides Declarer would figure out his problem at some point while running the clubs, in time to stop and enter hand with a club to take the losing diamond finesse.

Declarer's statement about taking five clubs and four diamonds could be taken as the order of play, IMO; he would be stuck on board and could only play diamonds from top down for 3 tricks.

We have lots of case Law that when someone says "I have three spade tricks, two hearts, one club and one diamond that this does not specify the order in which they are played. It would be nonsensical in some cases and cannot be right, therefore it is not right in general.

The top down thing is based on how you cash winners. AKJx opposite xxx is not a "cash winners" situation, it is a finesse or not situation, and as such is covered by Law 70E1. Since both cashing and finessing are normal plays the TD rules whichever is less successful.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 12:02, said:

I shall look at this when I have more time - probably in a separate thread since it seems irrelevant to this one. But I shall just point out before I dash out to go to bridge how annoying it is as a long time ACBL member that I do not receive the Bulletin unless I pay extra.

Annoying but understandable. International magazine postage is hugely expensive. The membership dues would only cover half the mailing cost (I'm assuming they're being honest when they describe this extra fee as the postal charge). By comparison, I estimate that around 15% of dues goes to US mailing of the bulletin).

[bluejak]

True, but dues are not specifically what it costs any individual player. That is not how it works. They go into a general pot, and cover all the costs. If the ACBL buys surveillance equipment to cover players at Nationals, do you think that the dues are higher for people who play in Nationals? Sure, some players have more costs than others, but for that matter some players get more benefits than others as well.

[alphatango]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 16:13, said:

The top down thing is based on how you cash winners. AKJx opposite xxx is not a "cash winners" situation, it is a finesse or not situation, and as such is covered by Law 70E1. Since both cashing and finessing are normal plays the TD rules whichever is less successful.

That seems sensible, except that when a declarer says "I have five clubs and four diamonds", it suggests that he believes he's cashing winners (and so would be awarded nine tricks here, assuming the appropriate 70E2 "top-down" regulation). Or are you saying that 70E1 overrides this?

[bluejak]

I never believe we can really produce rules of this sort for claims. Quite simply, I believe every case is different. We have to decide what he meant, not in general, but in this case and decide accordingly. But we do have one rule: if he says "I have five clubs and four diamonds" we do not assume he will necessarily play the clubs first.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-August-09, 10:43, said:

But we do have one rule: if he says "I have five clubs and four diamonds" we do not assume he will necessarily play the clubs first.

O.K., that kills my contention. Perhaps, Mike Flader's (and the actual TD's) decision on the Bulletin hand was just fine after all; and the technical objections by everyone in the previous thread were superfluous.

[bluejak]

Perhaps I might explain further. Suppose you said "I make three spade tricks and three ruffs in the dummy for six tricks". Everyone can see you mean spade to the ace, diamond ruff, spade to the king, diamond ruff, spade to the queen, diamond ruff. We would not disallow the claim saying he cannot take the three ruffs after the three spade tricks.

Or consider this hand:

---

You would not disallow a claim where declarer said "I have three spade tricks, three heart tricks, five diamond tricks and two clubs", would you? But he cannot play them in that order.

So you accept that stating the number of winners does not decree the order in these two claims, then you have to accept it does not decree the order in general.

[aguahombre]

I think there might be a difference between it being physically impossible to do something and it being possible to do something, but the TD selecting something else after a bad claim.

But, like I said in the post above, the order of play was not established because declarer's statement is not deemed to be an order of play; which you explained quite well the first time (post #9).

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-09, 10:43, said:

I never believe we can really produce rules of this sort for claims. Quite simply, I believe every case is different. We have to decide what he meant, not in general, but in this case and decide accordingly. But we do have one rule: if he says "I have five clubs and four diamonds" we do not assume he will necessarily play the clubs first.

I made a claim the other night kind of like that. I quickly appended "but not in that order, obviously" when I realized that the last card I mentioned would be stranded in the wrong hand if my claim were interpreted to specify order (they were all top tricks, trumps were gone, and I think I was just listing them from left to right).