[mrdct]

---

This is a real hand from Round 5 of the recent Victor Champion Cup in Melbourne.

Scenario 1

All four players would be consider "expert" by any sensible definition and have all represented Australia at either junior or senior level, but not open level. At the conclusion of the auction an accurate and confident explanation of the bidding was given by East with West in full agreement with the explanations being given. As South began contemplating his lead, West showed him his hand and said "if he's got what he just said he's got, I think I can count 13 tricks". East then showed South his hand to confirm that he did, in fact, hold what he said he did. South then conceded 13 tricks and said "might have been interesting if ♦ were 5-0". So an uneventful +1520 for East-West but it might have been quite a different story if ♦ weren't breaking. My gut feel is the West has probably been a tad naughty here in showing his hand to South and making the comment that he did as it could be construed as "participating in the play". If ♦ did happen to be 5-0 and the TD was called, how would you rule?

Scenario 2

At another table, East-West also got to 7NT and South lead the ♥8 and declarer (who is also a very strong player with international representative experience) went into planning mode. Under a little bit of time presure, South said "we've only got six minutes left to play two more boards - can't you claim?". East said "I think you've just claimed - please show me your hand". South refused and the TD was called. After the facts were relayed to the TD, East said "I've only got a problem if ♦ are 5-0 and if that's the case I think South's suggestion that play be curtailed is a claim and I should be able to take a winning double-dummy line of which there will likely be one through squeezing someone in ♦ and a major or double-squeeze if they can both guard ♠". The TD observed that ♦ were not 5-0 and ruled 13 tricks and told the players to hurry-up with their last two boards. So hypothetically, if ♦ were 5-0 would you treat South's suggestion that play be curtailed as a claim or would you tell them to play it out? Also, as it seems East has a pretty good plan on how he's going to cope with a bad ♦ break, is it reasonable or relevant to assume that he'll execute the squeeze properly?

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2012-June-17, 21:27, said:

Scenario 1

All four players would be consider "expert" by any sensible definition and have all represented Australia at either junior or senior level, but not open level. At the conclusion of the auction an accurate and confident explanation of the bidding was given by East with West in full agreement with the explanations being given. As South began contemplating his lead, West showed him his hand and said "if he's got what he just said he's got, I think I can count 13 tricks". East then showed South his hand to confirm that he did, in fact, hold what he said he did. South then conceded 13 tricks and said "might have been interesting if ♦ were 5-0". So an uneventful +1520 for East-West but it might have been quite a different story if ♦ weren't breaking. My gut feel is the West has probably been a tad naughty here in showing his hand to South and making the comment that he did as it could be construed as "participating in the play". If ♦ did happen to be 5-0 and the TD was called, how would you rule?

Well, I wouldn't rule that this was dummy participating in the play, as the comment was made during the clarification period, not the play period, so West isn't dummy yet.

mrdct, on 2012-June-17, 21:27, said:

Scenario 2

At another table, East-West also got to 7NT and South lead the ♥8 and declarer (who is also a very strong player with international representative experience) went into planning mode. Under a little bit of time presure, South said "we've only got six minutes left to play two more boards - can't you claim?". East said "I think you've just claimed - please show me your hand". South refused and the TD was called. After the facts were relayed to the TD, East said "I've only got a problem if ♦ are 5-0 and if that's the case I think South's suggestion that play be curtailed is a claim and I should be able to take a winning double-dummy line of which there will likely be one through squeezing someone in ♦ and a major or double-squeeze if they can both guard ♠". The TD observed that ♦ were not 5-0 and ruled 13 tricks and told the players to hurry-up with their last two boards. So hypothetically, if ♦ were 5-0 would you treat South's suggestion that play be curtailed as a claim or would you tell them to play it out? Also, as it seems East has a pretty good plan on how he's going to cope with a bad ♦ break, is it reasonable or relevant to assume that he'll execute the squeeze properly?

I think one could demonstrate that this is not a claim — it's an attempt to hurry East. Which makes it an extraneous remark.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-17, 22:19, said:

I think one could demonstrate that this is not a claim — it's an attempt to hurry East. Which makes it an extraneous remark.

So at what point do hurry-up comments become claims for the purposes of the "suggests that play be curtailed" provision in Law 68A:

68A. Claim Defined
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply). my emphasis added

What sort of comments by a contestant do you think are covered by the "suggests that play be curtailed" limb of Law 68A? I guess one that springs to mind would be where dummy is land-locked and high but for one potential loser and a defender points to that card and says, "that's either a loser or a winner".

[nigel_k]

I think the 'suggestion that play be curtailed' implies that play be curtailed because the outcome is not in doubt. This doesn't include asking whether declarer is able to claim.

Re the squeeze, first you need four tricks from clubs. Then there is a double squeeze if the ♥J is not with the diamond length. You can also make if they are both in the same hand but would have to guess which squeeze to play for. So I don't think you can ever assume it would make. I also cannot think of a line where cashing the ♦A early would cost so declarer in the second case is wasting people's time probably.

[mrdct]

I guess my point with Scenario 2 is that when a thoughtful declarer is diligently planning his play in a grand slam at IMPs, where going down when it was makeable will at best cost 17 IMPs and if they happen to have missed the grand in the other room will cost 31 IMPs, it's reasonable for declarer to take his time and think through all of the potential bad breaks, blockages, entry problems and squeeze positions. I think it's probably true that there's no layout where playing the ♦A at trick 2 could cost, but it still took me half a minute or so (about the time declarer was in the tank in this case after dummy came down) to rule-out the possibility of that consuming an important entry for potential squeeze positions of which there are many.

On the hand itself, there was no question that 13 tricks was cold due to the ♦ suit breaking; but let's imagine that South was looking at:

♠2
♥9876
♦109754
♣854

He knows declarer has ♦Ax (or perhaps an oddball 1NT opening with stiff ♦A) so the ♦ suit isn't going to be running and it seems that he has ample idle cards so he cockily says, "I wouldn't think too hard about this one mate, diamonds aren't breaking so unless you've got nine tricks outside of that suit you're stuffed". Now in my books that would clearly be a "suggestion that play be curtailed" constituting a claim and when East contests it, the principle in Law 70A of resolving doubful points (in this case, would declarer find the simple pop-up squeeze against North in the Majors?) in favour of the non-claimer ought to apply.

[axman]

mrdct, on 2012-June-17, 21:27, said:

---

This is a real hand from Round 5 of the recent Victor Champion Cup in Melbourne.

Scenario 1

All four players would be consider "expert" by any sensible definition and have all represented Australia at either junior or senior level, but not open level. At the conclusion of the auction an accurate and confident explanation of the bidding was given by East with West in full agreement with the explanations being given. As South began contemplating his lead, West showed him his hand and said "if he's got what he just said he's got, I think I can count 13 tricks". East then showed South his hand to confirm that he did, in fact, hold what he said he did. South then conceded 13 tricks and said "might have been interesting if ♦ were 5-0". So an uneventful +1520 for East-West but it might have been quite a different story if ♦ weren't breaking. My gut feel is the West has probably been a tad naughty here in showing his hand to South and making the comment that he did as it could be construed as "participating in the play". If ♦ did happen to be 5-0 and the TD was called, how would you rule?

Scenario 2

At another table, East-West also got to 7NT and South lead the ♥8 and declarer (who is also a very strong player with international representative experience) went into planning mode. Under a little bit of time presure, South said "we've only got six minutes left to play two more boards - can't you claim?". East said "I think you've just claimed - please show me your hand". South refused and the TD was called. After the facts were relayed to the TD, East said "I've only got a problem if ♦ are 5-0 and if that's the case I think South's suggestion that play be curtailed is a claim and I should be able to take a winning double-dummy line of which there will likely be one through squeezing someone in ♦ and a major or double-squeeze if they can both guard ♠". The TD observed that ♦ were not 5-0 and ruled 13 tricks and told the players to hurry-up with their last two boards. So hypothetically, if ♦ were 5-0 would you treat South's suggestion that play be curtailed as a claim or would you tell them to play it out? Also, as it seems East has a pretty good plan on how he's going to cope with a bad ♦ break, is it reasonable or relevant to assume that he'll execute the squeeze properly?

1. W has suggested EW will take 13 tricks [I think I can count 13 tricks". ]. That constitutes a claim (of 13 tricks by W).

2. S has suggested that play be curtailed [can't you claim?". ]. That constitutes a claim (of zero tricks by S).

[bluejak]

South has not suggested play be curtailed. I find it difficult to even argue this since he so obviously hasn't: he didn't say that declarer had 13 tricks, he didn't say that declarer could claim, he didn't do any of these. Suggesting the table should hurry up is not the same as suggesting play should be curtailed. Telling declarer he should claim because he has all the tricks is suggesting play should be curtailed. But asking him whether he could claim is not the same.

West has not claimed either: he has made a gratuitous and intended to be helpful remark to his opponent.

mrdct, on 2012-June-17, 23:03, said:

So at what point do hurry-up comments become claims for the purposes of the "suggests that play be curtailed" provision in Law 68A:

"For god's sake, claim, you have all the rest of the tricks."

"Why are we wasting time playing this out?"

"We have six minutes: what are you trying to do, squeeze me for the fourteenth trick? Get it over!"

[barmar]

In #2 if South actually has 5 diamonds, wouldn't this remark be considered a violation of 73D2? Unless declarer were Meckwell-class, would anyone really say "can't you claim" if they know it might require a squeeze? So I think we can treat South's remark as an admission that diamonds are breaking, and effectively a concession.

However, even if we do treat it as such, you can't concede a trick you can't lose. So if there's a 5-0 break, the TD will have to determine if there's a successful squeeze. But he should issue a PP to South for the misleading remark.