[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-November-04, 06:51, said:

If we follow the original line as stated we cash three rounds of clubs. If the ♣J does not come down, we take the club finesse.

So, because that is nonsense, you assume he meant something else. But the difference I assume he meant what everyone knows he meant, half the posts assume he meant something else. As for asking me how I know what he meant, be serious, please.

You justify your assumption, and deprecate others', by saying "everyone knows he meant" what you assume. But that isn't true. All I know is what he said, and he did not say "cash three rounds of clubs".

If I had been there, I would have asked him what he meant, and I would base my ruling on that. But I wasn't there. All I have to go on is what he said. So I'm basing my ruling on that. Paul was there, but apparently he didn't ask this question, he just made the same assumption you did. Somebody mentioned the "calibre" of the player. I don't know who he was, and even if I knew his name I'd probably have no idea of his "calibre". So if people are basing assumptions on knowing the player, they're acting on information not available to me. That's cheating.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-04, 08:13, said:

Paul was there, but apparently he didn't ask this question, he just made the same assumption you did.

I wasn't there; the hand was related to me and declarer was a strong player - let us say of Bluejak standard for the sake of argument. When West contested his claim, he (correctly) said that he had said "club finesse" but admitted he meant "spade finesse" when he then felt a bit guilty about trying it on, and the director ruled one down, as West had Jxxx of clubs and East the king of spades, as I stated earlier.

[Free]

This is an interesting one. Imo it's clear that South wanted to say "finesse ♠ if the ♣J doesn't drop", but he didn't say it. He clearly stated a line of play which means ♣A followed by the ♣ finesse. So you act accordingly and accept/reject the claim depending on what cards EW hold. It's like playing to AQ, LHO plays the K and declarer says Q -> he won't get to play the Ace!

However, I wonder what's the best action for East when you're in a similar situation. Is it ethical to ask to repeat the claim statement? And if he says ♣ finesse again, is it ethical to ask if he really means the ♣ finesse and not the ♠ finesse?

[Bbradley62]

bluejak, on 2010-November-04, 06:51, said:

If we follow the original line as stated we cash three rounds of clubs. If the ♣J does not come down, we take the club finesse.

Where does the original claim say anything about cashing three rounds of clubs? If declarer's answer for his strange line of play is "I believe Barry Crane: the queen is over the jack in the minors, and under the jack in the majors", what can you do?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2010-November-04, 08:38, said:

I wasn't there; the hand was related to me and declarer was a strong player - let us say of Bluejak standard for the sake of argument. When West contested his claim, he (correctly) said that he had said "club finesse" but admitted he meant "spade finesse" when he then felt a bit guilty about trying it on, and the director ruled one down, as West had Jxxx of clubs and East the king of spades, as I stated earlier.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood one of your earlier posts, then. Though I wish you had given us all the facts in the first place!

As I said somewhere upthread, in the end, as the cards lay, he's gonna get a one down ruling however the TD arrives there - but I still think you have to go by the actual evidence, not assumptions or what "everybody knows".

Quote

If "everybody knows" such-and-such, then it ain't so. (Robert Heinlein)

[lamford]

Oddly, I used a couple of similar quotes this week in a non-bridge related matter: I think Will Rogers plagiarised Mark Twain:

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so – Mark Twain
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. – Will Rogers

[blackshoe]

I supposed Heinlein probably got it from one or both of them.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-November-04, 06:51, said:

If we follow the original line as stated we cash three rounds of clubs. If the ♣J does not come down, we take the club finesse.

So, because that is nonsense, you assume he meant something else. But the difference I assume he meant what everyone knows he meant, half the posts assume he meant something else. As for asking me how I know what he meant, be serious, please.

Frankly I shall interpret OP differently: "If the ♣J has not dropped before he must decide for a finesse (i.e. at the second club trick) he will take the finesse".

This is literally what he said, and there is no indication that his claim statement was inadvertent in any way. The announced line of play is of course inferior, but I do not accept that it shall be ruled irrational (he may for instance have overlooked that he had the alternative spade finesse or his guts feeling makes him pretty confident that West holds the ♣J)

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2010-November-04, 05:53, said:

When you reach trick twelve, the opponents will have three spades and the jack of clubs left (the latter in either hand).

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-04, 06:05, said:

I think you are assuming the ♣J is marked in West's hand. But of course if both defenders follow to 3 rounds of clubs then there is no reason why this is the case.

Thank you for this wonderful opportunity to test the multiquote feature.

mgoetze, on 2010-November-03, 16:04, said:

Actually, if East shows out on one of the first three rounds of clubs, the clearly right line is to play for a squeeze.

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-04, 17:40, said:

Thank you for this wonderful opportunity to test the multiquote feature.

I can't work out the multiquote feature. I indicated in an early thread that both opponents followed to three rounds of clubs, so the squeeze is against the odds and does not work either. But I do agree that the correct wording of the claim was that declarer should cash three rounds of clubs. If the jack did not drop, and East followed to all three rounds of clubs, he would take the spade finesse. If East showed out on a club, he would lead a spade towards the AQ, at trick twelve, and, if the king had not appeared he would rise with the ace.

[lamford]

pran, on 2010-November-04, 14:09, said:

Frankly I shall interpret OP differently: "If the ♣J has not dropped before he must decide for a finesse (i.e. at the second club trick) he will take the finesse".

This is literally what he said, and there is no indication that his claim statement was inadvertent in any way. The announced line of play is of course inferior, but I do not accept that it shall be ruled irrational (he may for instance have overlooked that he had the alternative spade finesse or his guts feeling makes him pretty confient that West holds the ♣J)

My opinion is that you are guilty of serious misjudgement. The combination of stating that he would take the club finesse if the jack of clubs did not drop makes it incontrovertible, to me, that what he meant was to cash the clubs and take the spade finesse. You would actually give him the contract, because the jack of clubs was onside, and when the jack of clubs was offside you would deem that he went one off. 0 out of 2 correct decisions, but better than the average for Tom Henning Ovrebo.

[dburn]

Declarer's statement constitutes a line of play that it is possible to follow. Indeed, if North's non-ace spade were lower than the queen it would be the correct line - you should cash the ace of clubs and if the jack does not come down, you should take the club finesse.

Since that is what declarer said he was going to do, that is what declarer will be considered to do, and the success or failure of the contract will depend on the club position - the spade position is not relevant. Doubtless declarer meant to say something else, and doubtless if there were no such thing as a claim declarer would not have played in this fashion, but I cannot help that. Neither can his opponents, and neither can the Director.

[McBruce]

I have heard other ACBL TDs say that there is a key difference between a poorly-thought-out claim statement and a poorly-worded claim statement. I think the idea is that "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" means that we don't adopt a "gotcha" attitude, and when it is apparent that the claimer has simply misspoken and actually meant something different from what was literally said, we go with what was meant.

Here, it is pretty clear to me that declarer inadvertently substituted "club finesse" for "spade finesse." It might rise to the level of "doubtful point" if declarer had three small clubs opposite AKQT.

Note that 70D1 and 70E1 says "the Director shall not accept from claimer..." The last two words do not preclude the Director from accepting a line of play that he thinks is what the claimer intended to say, even if what actually came out is different.

[lamford]

corrected

[lamford]

dburn, on 2010-November-04, 22:57, said:

Declarer's statement constitutes a line of play that it is possible to follow. Indeed, if North's non-ace spade were lower than the queen it would be the correct line - you should cash the ace of clubs and if the jack does not come down, you should take the club finesse.

Since that is what declarer said he was going to do, that is what declarer will be considered to do <snip>

Here we disagree. If he had stated that he was going to take a heart or diamond finesse instead of a club finesse, you would not consider him to do that, even if there were some minor finesse available. Where we disagree is whether a declarer can change an irrational stated line to a rational one. The logical corollary of 70E1 indicates to me that you are mistaken, and your approach to claims is, generally, too rigid.

[pran]

lamford, on 2010-November-05, 04:34, said:

Here we disagree. If he had stated that he was going to take a heart or diamond finesse instead of a club finesse, you would not consider him to do that, even if there were some minor finesse available. Where we disagree is whether a declarer can change an irrational stated line to a rational one. The logical corollary of 70E1 indicates to me that you are mistaken, and your approach to claims is, generally, too rigid.

I agree that you have an opinion on it, but in my opinion you (and others) have completely failed to show that the club finesse is irrational and not just inferior. The literally stated line of play (with the club finesse) has after all slightly better than 50% chance of success.

[phil_20686]

Its the structure of the sentence that makes the claim appear irrational. If i planned to play on clubs seems more normal to say "top club club hook" The use of the word unless seems to imply two separate clauses. After all - in the above line if the J falls in one round it makes no difference if the J clubs falls - taking the hook is now no lose. I do not believe any native english speak would describe the line to play on clubs in this fashion. This is strong evidence that he mispoke.

[axman]

McBruce, on 2010-November-04, 23:06, said:

I have heard other ACBL TDs say that there is a key difference between a poorly-thought-out claim statement and a poorly-worded claim statement. I think the idea is that "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" means that we don't adopt a "gotcha" attitude,

If you have read the law then you ought to know that your assertion is not true.

The reason is that the law defines precisely what "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" means because it contains the words "The Director proceeds as follows" and what follows are the paragraphs L70B thru L70E. This does not mean that "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" is scary- since it is more descriptive to term them words of terror.

THis is so because while one would expect that L70 should lead to the TD apportioning the unplayed tricks it is only L70C that does so- with the effect that for most contested claims there is no provision for apportioning the unplayed tricks. Yes, that means for an OL contested claim because declarer has taken no tricks his score will be for zero tricks.

This is so because for all of the things that L70BDE tells the TD to do and to not do, none of them instruct him to apportion the unplayed tricks and L68 requires that play stop upon a claim.

It can be anticipated that knowlegeable people will say that this post is not helpful in making rulings but such notions ignore the very basic` fact that bridge is to be played and adjudicated in accordance with law and this post illuminates what the law requires- however distasteful it may be.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2010-November-04, 08:38, said:

I wasn't there; the hand was related to me and declarer was a strong player - let us say of Bluejak standard for the sake of argument. When West contested his claim, he (correctly) said that he had said "club finesse" but admitted he meant "spade finesse" when he then felt a bit guilty about trying it on, and the director ruled one down, as West had Jxxx of clubs and East the king of spades, as I stated earlier.

• Compared with most Bridge-laws, declarer's claim statement is a model of clarity. His line relied solely on a favourable club position: Cash a top club. If the club knave does not drop, then take the club finesse. A better than 50% shot. Even International players adopt inferior lines in the heat of battle.
• Apparently, the director asked what declarer intended to say. Some declarers would stick to their original statement. This masochist admitted that he intended the more rational but less successful line: cash three rounds of clubs. If the knave does not appear then finesse the spade queen.
• Incidentally, if RHO shows out on the second or third round of clubs, may a director demonstrate further erudition by allowing declarer to play Mgoetze's show-up squeeze, dropping a singleton king off-side?
• In spite of the honesty of this declarer, I agree with DBurn that the director should stick to the original claim statement because a more typical declarer may have second thoughts when opponents query a claim statement and may exercise creativity when amending it to what he meant to say. (A telepathic director might be allowed to exercise discretion).
• As usual, simpler clearer laws, would spoil all our fun.

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-05, 06:21, said:

Its the structure of the sentence that makes the claim appear irrational. If i planned to play on clubs seems more normal to say "top club club hook" The use of the word unless seems to imply two separate clauses. After all - in the above line if the J falls in one round it makes no difference if the J clubs falls - taking the hook is now no lose. I do not believe any native english speak would describe the line to play on clubs in this fashion. This is strong evidence that he mispoke.

It's strong evidence that you believe he misspoke. I disagree that what you think you would do is any evidence at all of what he would do.