[Phil]

In practice, a player that cannot count to 13 is not going to notice that the ♣JT8 are falling, much less remember that they held the ♣97 in their hand in the 1st place.

How this affects the claim adjudication, I have no idea.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-September-09, 10:51, said:

Having seen that the clubs are breaking, is there any reason why he wouldn't cash his DA before discarding his losing diamond on the "good" club?

That would seem to be an unnatural play.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-September-09, 12:31, said:

That would seem to be an unnatural play.

I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-September-10, 13:22, said:

I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order.

Yes I can go with that. In which case, we would make him cash the hearts before the A♦, so he will go down more. I presume whenever a declarer wrongly thinks a card is a winner, you would find the line that goes down most? So in this case, if declarer may think the card is not a winner, perhaps on reflection, we do not allow him to cash it.

[blackshoe]

I do not think so. See my comment in the other thread.

[shyams]

gordontd, on 2011-September-09, 10:51, said:

Having seen that the clubs are breaking, is there any reason why he wouldn't cash his DA before discarding his losing diamond on the "good" club?

lamford, on 2011-September-09, 12:31, said:

That would seem to be an unnatural play.

gordontd, on 2011-September-10, 13:22, said:

I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order.

I don't understand this section. Cashing the ♦A will make no difference if it is followed up with playing the "13th" club -- which coincidentally turns out to be a winner -- and declarer discarding his last remaining diamond on it.

[lamford]

shyams, on 2011-September-11, 09:51, said:

I don't understand this section. Cashing the ♦A will make no difference if it is followed up with playing the "13th" club -- which coincidentally turns out to be a winner -- and declarer discarding his last remaining diamond on it.

gordontd was considering if the club were not a winner. He would then rule one or more down.

[phil_20686]

On this particular hand, it seems hard to go off, after cashing 3 clubs the only "natural" way to return to hand is to ruff the last club, when you play the club from dummy and rho plays a smaller one he will know its a winner regardless?

In general it feels like the laws needs a definition of words that are common in claim statements. It still seems eminently reasonably to interpret "break" to mean that the last club will be a winner. If Benito Garozzo had made this claim no one would have questioned it. Its fortunate that this hand is spared needing to watch the club pips as rho has the 4th one.


If the defenders clubs were reversed this would be different.

[ggwhiz]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-09, 10:28, said:

I wont assume that despite his misconceptins about the hand, South will follow the spots in clubs, or play off the last club just in case.

He doesn't have to follow the spots. The ♣ suit broke 3-3 and despite that being impossible declarer didn't know that until it was pointed out by the Director. The statement of claim was to pitch after the ♣ suit "broke 3-3".

Clearly intending to play a 4th round of the suit and pitch a ♦. And be surprised but making.

[AlexJonson]

ggwhiz, on 2011-September-12, 22:15, said:

He doesn't have to follow the spots. The ♣ suit broke 3-3 and despite that being impossible declarer didn't know that until it was pointed out by the Director. The statement of claim was to pitch after the ♣ suit "broke 3-3".

Clearly intending to play a 4th round of the suit and pitch a ♦. And be surprised but making.

As a matter of fact the suit didn't break 3-3 and couldn't.

[nigel_k]

It is careless and inferior but not irrational to do the following:

Start playing clubs and then realize that there are seven missing, not six. Not notice that the ♣6 is high so come to hand with a spade and take the diamond finesse.

Down 1.

[campboy]

I think that is extremely unlikely. I've often made the mistake of thinking there were six cards in a suit out when there were seven (or the same with different numbers); I can't remember ever realising the mistake before it became clear by someone playing the "fourteenth" card (or both showing out when I thought there was one left).

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-13, 04:11, said:

I think that is extremely unlikely. I've often made the mistake of thinking there were six cards in a suit out when there were seven (or the same with different numbers); I can't remember ever realising the mistake before it became clear by someone playing the "fourteenth" card (or both showing out when I thought there was one left).

Indeed, but as you say in other thread you are not expert. So I guess an expert is someone who can count up to thirteen, both for a suit that has been completely played and for one that has not. I prefer "an ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure", but that does not have much bridge relevance. I agree with iviehoof and nigel_k that declarer may well realise the suit cannot break before he plays the fourth round. When his count gets as high as 8, he might realise there are 5 left of which he has but 2. The other views get overruled because doubtful points are decided against the claimer.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-September-13, 05:17, said:

Indeed, but as you say in other thread you are not expert.

So what? My experience of miscounting suits is more relevant than your experience of counting them correctly.

I don't consider it a doubtful point, since I have no doubt declarer will be thinking "there are six out... now there are four out... now there are two out... now the last one's good." Obviously what is and is not doubtful is a matter of judgement.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-September-13, 05:27, said:

So what? My experience of miscounting suits is more relevant than your experience of counting them correctly.

I also miscount suits from time to time, but neither my nor your miscounting percentage is relevant. We surmise that this declarer counted trumps correctly, as he drew exactly two rounds before claiming. He miscounted clubs before playing a round. The only evidence we have is that he counts right half the time. So, there is a 87.5% chance that he will count the clubs correctly after three rounds of the suit. I agree it is not doubtful; this declarer will probably discover that the clubs are not 3-3 in time to avoid making it! So, he is one off.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-September-13, 06:06, said:

I also miscount suits from time to time, but neither my nor your miscounting percentage is relevant. We know that this declarer counted trumps correctly, as he drew exactly two rounds before claiming. He miscounted clubs before playing a round. The only evidence we have is that he counts right half the time. So, there is a 87.5% chance that he will count the clubs correctly after three rounds of the suit. I agree it is not doubtful; this declarer will probably discover that the clubs are not 3-3 in time to avoid making it! So, he is one off.

You seem to be assuming that he will recount the suit after each trick. Why do you assume that, rather than the alternative of counting each suit once, then relying on that original figure for the remainder of the hand?

Furthermore, if he does recount after every trick, your inference that he counts right half the time is doubtful. He had three opportunities to count the trump suit, so we don't know when he realised that the opponents had four of them. Nor do we know whether he will detect a discrepancy between the latest count and an earlier one, or what he does after detecting such a discrepancy.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-September-13, 06:19, said:

You seem to be assuming that he will recount the suit after each trick. Why do you assume that, rather than the alternative of counting each suit once, then relying on that original figure for the remainder of the hand?

Furthermore, if he does recount after every trick, your inference that he counts right half the time is doubtful. He had three opportunities to count the trump suit, so we don't know when he realised that the opponents had four of them. Nor do we know whether he will detect a discrepancy between the latest count and an earlier one, or what he does after detecting such a discrepancy.

As we don't know whether he counted the heart-suit correctly before playing it or after one round, we cannot include those tests as we do not have the results. But, you are right, there is no reasonable means of assessing whether he counts each suit every trick; we have evidence that he should do so. However we do not need to get at that figure exactly. Doubtful points are resolved against the claimer, and it is doubtful if he will realise that clubs are not 3-3 however many rounds he plays. Therefore he is one off.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2011-September-09, 09:03, said:

"I thought a 3-3 break would allow me to discard both my diamonds", was the reply.

This quote from declarer after the fact makes his state of mind clear (but confused).

How can you now have THIS player 1. actually count the suit. 2. Not know that the last club is high.

OK. 2 is a slam dunk but playing the last club for a ♦ pitch is clear as a bell isn't it? Stated in the claim and confirmed by the above.

The 3-3 break (phantom though it is) is what he played for and it worked. He simply got away with a brain cramp IMO.

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2011-September-13, 09:20, said:

This quote from declarer after the fact makes his state of mind clear (but confused).

How can you now have THIS player 1. actually count the suit. 2. Not know that the last club is high.

OK. 2 is a slam dunk but playing the last club for a ♦ pitch is clear as a bell isn't it? Stated in the claim and confirmed by the above.

The 3-3 break (phantom though it is) is what he played for and it worked. He simply got away with a brain cramp IMO.

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2011-September-13, 09:35, said:

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

I understand your legitimate point but IMHO I think the ♣ did break in the mind of the declarer, using "mind" loosely since it took a walk.

However, I do bow to more experience opinion.