[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-September-14, 10:56, said:

One of my students is so bad that I encourage him to claim silently at trick one, and he gets to make far more contracts than he would if he played them out.

I find this troubling. You're encouraging him to violate the law.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 16:44, said:

I find this troubling. You're encouraging him to violate the law.

Not so; he only plays online and there is no obligation under the rules of the site to type anything when claiming. The opponents accept or decline as they choose.

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-14, 13:18, said:

Of all the words I have ever looked up in a dictionary, break has the longest entry.

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

[lamford]

nigel_k, on 2011-September-13, 14:19, said:

The alternative view is that we work out what would have happened if the hand had been played out in accordance with declarer's intention, using his statement of claim as evidence of that intention. This would not be a bad rule, but it isn't the rule that is actually written in the laws.

This appears to be bluejak's and many others' approach to claims, and I agree with you that it is not the right approach. The Laws require one down on both this and the other. Unequivocally.

[phil_20686]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:47, said:

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

You wrote in the other thread that declarer was to disregard what declarer meant, and only rule based on what he actually said. Indeed, you applied the same approach to the construction above. Why is the TD allowed to take account of intention here, when he is not allowed to otherwise?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:44, said:

Not so; he only plays on line and there is no obligation under the rules of the site to type anything when claiming. The opponents accept or decline as they choose.

There are online laws. Those laws require a claim statement. If you think that the WBF is irrelevant to online bridge, well, you're entitled, as a friend of mine used to say, to your wrong opinion.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:47, said:

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

That's ridiculous. He has to find out the information before using it. You seem to be interpreting his claim statement as "I will look in the opponents hands to see whether the clubs are 3-3 and if they aren't I shall take the diamond finesse."

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:51, said:

This appears to be bluejak's and many others' approach to claims, and I agree with you that it is not the right approach. The Laws require one down on both this and the other. Unequivocally.

What does "unequivocally" mean? That you are right and we are wrong?

Methinks it is time you re-read the first sentence of contested claims again, which you are required to follow, even though most people forget it.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:47, said:

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

How would he find out if the clubs break 3-3? By playing three rounds and seeing if both opponents follow. They do, so in terms of the decision that leads him to make next, they "do" break 3-3.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-September-15, 08:21, said:

How would he find out if the clubs break 3-3? By playing three rounds and seeing if both opponents follow. They do, so in terms of the decision that leads him to make next, they "do" break 3-3.

I submit that whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact. He did not say "if everyone follows to three rounds of clubs" when he would indeed make the contract. He can find out if the clubs break 3-3 from Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. So he can deduct the number of clubs he holds from 13, and find out that the suit will not break 3-3 without playing a single card in the suit. Armed with the results of his research, having discovered the clubs cannot be 3-3, he takes the diamond finesse. QED.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 08:17, said:

What does "unequivocally" mean? That you are right and we are wrong?

Methinks it is time you re-read the first sentence of contested claims again, which you are required to follow, even though most people forget it.

I am aware of the requirement to adjudicate claims as equitably as possible. Methinks it is time you re-read the last sentence of 70A, which I presume is the clause to which you refer. That tells the TD how to proceeed in order to fulfil that objective.

[campboy]

Ok, lamford. Suppose we alter the EW hands to give West four clubs to the 8 and the king of diamonds. Declarer makes the same claim. Now I would rule that declarer goes off, as will almost certainly happen in practice, after he cashes three rounds of clubs, notes that both opponents follow, and pitches a diamond on the six of clubs. Would you still rule that "whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact" and since it doesn't he takes the diamond finesse?

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-15, 07:25, said:

You wrote in the other thread that declarer was to disregard what declarer meant, and only rule based on what he actually said. Indeed, you applied the same approach to the construction above. Why is the TD allowed to take account of intention here, when he is not allowed to otherwise?

Perhaps because in this case, the word "break" is ambiguous, so it's necessary to find out which sense of the word he was using to know what he "actually said".

In the other thread there was no interpretation of the original claim statement that could possibly apply to the cards.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-15, 10:23, said:

Ok, lamford. Suppose we alter the EW hands to give West four clubs to the 8 and the king of diamonds. Declarer makes the same claim. Now I would rule that declarer goes off, as will almost certainly happen in practice, after he cashes three rounds of clubs, notes that both opponents follow, and pitches a diamond on the six of clubs. Would you still rule that "whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact" and since it doesn't he takes the diamond finesse?

No, he makes his contract; the clubs were not 3-3, and playing three rounds of the suit has not changed the probability which was 0% throughout. There is a slight chance that one or other of the opponent's hands could be as deficient as the declarer's brain, but in that case the missing card would be deemed to belong to their hand, and the suit would still not break 3-3. Therefore he takes the diamond finesse. Effectively his original statement was "I will take the diamond finesse". If he had added "unless clubs are 2-2", he would still be required to take the diamond finesse.

[gnasher]

The phrase "If the clubs do not break" was plainly intended to describe part of his line of play, even though it was phrased as a description of a layout. The fact that the clubs cannot, in fact, be 3-3 is irrelevant.

Declarer's original claim statement, together with his subsequent response to the director's question, make it clear that his intended line of play was:
- Play on the assumption that the opponents have six clubs between them
- Cash three rounds of clubs throwing a diamond.
- If each opponent has played three clubs, play the remaining club and throw another diamond.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-September-16, 05:08, said:

The fact that the clubs cannot, in fact, be 3-3 is irrelevant.

This is where we differ. The old laws I believe forced declarer to play in strict accordance with his statement. You are concluding that declarer would have played three rounds of clubs and continued to miscount them, noticed that East did not beat the six of clubs, and now you are making him assume that West has no higher club than the six so that he makes his contract. It is clear that this a line not encompassed in the original claim statement. There is an alternative normal line - the immediate diamond finesse.

The TD is not there to guess what declarer meant if his statement is legal - he just follows it. If the clubs are 3-3 he will discard diamonds on two clubs. Let us say that he does play three rounds of clubs. When East follows to the fourth club, he now knows the clubs are not 3-3, both from his original holding, and from the fact that he has seen seven clubs from the opponents. His original statement now requires him to ruff this and take the diamond finesse, clearly a normal line, as he might have miscounted by two clubs.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-September-16, 05:32, said:

You are concluding that declarer would have played three rounds of clubs and continued to miscount them, noticed that East did not beat the six of clubs, and now you are making him assume that West has no higher club than the six so that he makes his contract.

I've carefully reread my three posts in this thread, and I can't find anything that would lead you to believe that I've reached this conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion).

At the moment, all I'm disagreeing with is posts such as:

Quote

No, he did not state that he was going to cash the six of clubs if it became good. He stated that he would cash the six of clubs if the clubs broke [3-3]. Unluckily they did not, so he takes the diamond finesse.

Quote

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

Quote

I submit that whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact. He did not say "if everyone follows to three rounds of clubs" when he would indeed make the contract. He can find out if the clubs break 3-3 from Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. So he can deduct the number of clubs he holds from 13, and find out that the suit will not break 3-3 without playing a single card in the suit. Armed with the results of his research, having discovered the clubs cannot be 3-3, he takes the diamond finesse. QED.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-September-16, 05:53, said:

<snip>If each opponent has played three clubs, play the remaining club and throw another diamond. <snip>

As I understand it you think the claimer has effectively stated that he would follow that line, even though that is not what he said. I argue that if the clubs broke 3-3, he would follow that line, but they didn't break. And he has two bits of evidence to convince him that they didn't break 3-3: the appearance of a seventh club from East, and the fact that he only started with six in his combined hands. It would appear that you think declarer should be awarded his contract, but if not, I apologise for forming that conclusion.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 08:29, said:

I submit that whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact. He did not say "if everyone follows to three rounds of clubs" when he would indeed make the contract. He can find out if the clubs break 3-3 from Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. So he can deduct the number of clubs he holds from 13, and find out that the suit will not break 3-3 without playing a single card in the suit. Armed with the results of his research, having discovered the clubs cannot be 3-3, he takes the diamond finesse. QED.

If declarer started a claim statement with the words "drawing the last trump" when it turned out the opponents' trumps had by this point already been drawn, would you rule that part of the claim statement invalid because it is impossible to draw a non-existent trump, and look only at other plausible lines of play, or would you adjudicate the claim on the basis that declarer is going to start by trying to draw a trump that isn't there?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2011-September-16, 07:38, said:

If declarer started a claim statement with the words "drawing the last trump" when it turned out the opponents' trumps had by this point already been drawn, would you rule that part of the claim statement invalid because it is impossible to draw a non-existent trump, and look only at other plausible lines of play, or would you adjudicate the claim on the basis that declarer is going to start by trying to draw a trump that isn't there?

I think that there is a WBFLC minute that the TD follows the claim until it breaks down, and I recall RMB1 indicating something along those lines, but rather than my search for this, others may recall any relevant pronouncements. If declarer had prefaced his claim with "drawing the last trump", that would involve playing another round of trumps and looking for lurkers. Personally, I would hold him to the remainder of his statement, if it was not negated by this drawing of the last trump. Which gives me the idea for another hand ...