[campboy]

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?

Suppose a player had claimed in a position where he has a choice of two finesses, saying "if the heart finesse doesn't work I'll take the spade finesse instead". Would you "follow the laws" and allow him to make all the tricks by taking the spade finesse when the heart finesse doesn't work?

What the player here meant was "if I find out that the clubs aren't 3-3 I'll take the diamond finesse". He won't find out that the clubs aren't 3-3 until East plays the thirteenth club under the twelfth, at which point it would be irrational to take the diamond finesse.

[phil_20686]

lamford, on 2011-September-13, 06:24, said:

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.

In the other thread you wanted to peanalise declarer by holding him to what he actually said, as opposed to what he meant. In this thread you wish to penalize declarer because of what she meant, while ignoring what she said.

Let us consider a different construction: Your hands are say

---

in 7N, suppose the claim statement is "cash the top diamonds" then if that doesnt work, cash a top club and take the hook", immeadeately corrected to "cash the top clubs, if that doesnt work, cash a top diamond and take the hook".

Would you rule
A that the initial claim stands
B that the corrected claim stands
C The contract only makes if both claims would have succeeded. I.e. Declarer is assumed to play whatever line fails.

[AlexJonson]

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?

As it happens I agree with your logic on this post, perhaps because the construct 'if a then b else c' seems quite well defined/determinate to me.

However, a tongue tied statement that cannot be intended is a different matter, I hope, so I continue to disagree with the SB view of the other post.

So -1 this time and makes last time.

Meanwhile strengthen the Laws or their interpretation as much as you wish, you will eventually be alone claiming, as everyone else harbours doubt and plays it out.

[nigel_k]

The relevant law is 70-D-1:

"The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful."

where "normal" includes "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved".

As I stated earlier, I think it is clear that there is a "normal" line that would fail. But I think we haven't fully addressed the issue of whether the successful line is "embraced in" the original claim. My position this:

When declarer used the word "break", in the context of this hand he clearly meant "break 3-3". Since there is no way for a suit to break 3-3 when there are seven cards missing, that part of the statement is essentially meaningless. So I would just rule that there is no line of play whatsoever that is "embraced in" such a statement.

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.

[bluejak]

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 think what you mean is "Following the Laws exactly as lamford sees them leads to one down ..." It is quite clear that your views on the Laws on claims are not exactly agreed by everyone else who posts here.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-September-13, 17:04, said:

I think what you mean is "Following the Laws exactly as lamford sees them leads to one down ..." It is quite clear that your views on the Laws on claims are not exactly agreed by everyone else who posts here.

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to interpret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-14, 02:54, said:

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to intrepret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

Perhaps we are just giving fairly heavy weight to the part of Law 70A that says, "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides".

[Fluffy]

Not sure if this makes any sense with the laws, but IMO a declarer who doesn't count clubs won't notice the 6 is good, however if dummy's hand was:

♠AKQ
♥QJx
♦AQx
♣AKQ6


then the only way to move back to hand after drawing trumps and cashing clubs would be to play ♣6 to ruff, and seeing that it is good he would let it run.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-September-14, 02:54, said:

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to intrepret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

Adjudicating claims is a judgment ruling. If you choose examples where there are plausible alternatives, it is not surprising that there are differing views on what the ruling should be. The law explicitly tells us to adjudicate claims equitably, subject to various things, so it is not surprising that people think fairness is relevant.

We could have a law that removed judgment from claim ruling. There are a couple of possibilities. One is to say that if the claim statement is faulty, any trick that could be lost by any possible play is lost (and as it is impossible to draw an exact line between perverse deliberate misere play and other play, that would have to include perverse deliberate misere play). Do we want that? Another possibility is the kind of play-on rule that they have in on-line bridge, although there would invitably be a UI restriction that reintroduces judgment if there is a disagreement ove that. Having looked at that rule, when Nigel tried to argue for it, I'm not sure I'm persuaded that's a good way to go either, at least not for serious level bridge.

Yes we can construct examples where the claim law is unsatisfactory, as the judgment element results in large differences in the result. I would suggest that in practice this doesn't happen very often, and is happens less often than the judgment element in UI cases results in large differences in the outcome. So on balance, things are not so bad. Maybe we could have a bit more official guidance on equity/balance of doubt/normal plays in claim rulings, but that would make the amount of reference material needed to make the ruling even larger, so that is not necessarily a good idea either.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-14, 06:10, said:

We could have a law that removed judgment from claim ruling. There are a couple of possibilities. One is to say that if the claim statement is faulty, any trick that could be lost by any possible play is lost (and as it is impossible to draw an exact line between perverse deliberate misere play and other play, that would have to include perverse deliberate misere play). Do we want that?

I don't. Apart from other considerations, it would probably make our life harder: imagine how difficult it is to construct a line of play that really is the worst. Rather harder than working out the best line (because it's harder to see things the opposite way than we're accustomed to), and we know from arguments about Deep Finesse analysis that seeing the best line isn't always obvious.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-September-14, 02:54, said:

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to intrepret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

Quote

Law 12B2: The director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[gordontd]

This isn't really to the point, since we aren't adjusting, penalising, or rectifying.

[blackshoe]

Depends what point you're talking about. The quote of the law certainly answers Paul's point that he couldn't find it.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-14, 06:10, said:

[...]
We could have a law that removed judgment from claim ruling. There are a couple of possibilities. One is to say that if the claim statement is faulty, any trick that could be lost by any possible play is lost (and as it is impossible to draw an exact line between perverse deliberate misere play and other play, that would have to include perverse deliberate misere play). Do we want that?
[...]

Once upon a time the claim law was very simple and easy for the Director to apply:

When a player (usually Declarer) made a claim he must face his cards and from thereon opponents could specify each card to be played so long as their specifications did not conflict with the statement made by the claimer. (Opponents were permitted to consult each other and to inspect each others' cards during this process).

Fair? - Sure, it was the same law for everybody. No question about class of player and such matters.

Desirable? - well, the lawmakers pretty soon ended on a different approach.

Do we want the original rules? - I seriously doubt it (except that it would efficiently end all doubtful claims).

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-13, 11:00, said:

In the other thread you wanted to peanalise declarer by holding him to what he actually said, as opposed to what he meant. In this thread you wish to penalize declarer because of what she meant, while ignoring what she said.

In the other thread, I agree. Because Law 70D1 tells us not to accept the alternative line. In this thread, I also want to penalise declarer because of what she said. She said "if clubs break". The TD interprets that as "breaks 3-3" as no other meaning is plausible. The clubs did not break 3-3, therefore she takes the diamond finesse.

So, in both cases, I am deeming the declarer to follow what they said, or, if what they said makes no sense, they are deemed to take the least favourable normal line.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2011-September-14, 05:37, said:

Not sure if this makes any sense with the laws, but IMO a declarer who doesn't count clubs won't notice the 6 is good, however if dummy's hand was:

♠AKQ
♥QJx
♦AQx
♣AKQ6


then the only way to move back to hand after drawing trumps and cashing clubs would be to play ♣6 to ruff, and seeing that it is good he would let it run.

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. How would you rule if he had actually used the expression "break 3-3"?

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-13, 11:00, said:

In the other thread you wanted to peanalise declarer by holding him to what he actually said, as opposed to what he meant. In this thread you wish to penalize declarer because of what she meant, while ignoring what she said.

Let us consider a different construction: Your hands are say

---

in 7N, suppose the claim statement is "cash the top diamonds" then if that doesnt work, cash a top club and take the hook", immeadeately corrected to "cash the top clubs, if that doesnt work, cash a top diamond and take the hook".

Would you rule
A that the initial claim stands
B that the corrected claim stands
C The contract only makes if both claims would have succeeded. I.e. Declarer is assumed to play whatever line fails.

The correction is only allowed if there is no other normal line, so A. If the correction is deemed to be part of the original clarification statement, then that could be different. I do not know how soon a correction has to be made for this to be so; perhaps there is some case law on the matter. The original claim looks "normal", as does the second line. The right line looks to be to cash one top diamond and the clubs from the top, playing the show-up squeeze when West has the long club and East Qx of diamonds, but no doubt someone will find a better line. I would regard anything involving cashing diamonds or clubs, or taking a diamond or club finesse as "normal". Running the jack of diamonds at trick two would be hopeless and not normal. So the original claim is always imposed here, and the contract depends solely on whether that works. If the claimer states "I will run the jack of diamonds", then I think he gets the least successful normal line, as the law does not exempt the claim statement, as far as I can see, from the normality test, and the claimer is allowed to substitute a normal line. The trouble is he gets the least successful normal line. 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.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-September-14, 06:29, said:

Imagine how difficult it is to construct a line of play that really is the worst.

One of my partners seems to have no problem.

[phil_20686]

lamford, on 2011-September-14, 10:45, said:

In the other thread, I agree. Because Law 70D1 tells us not to accept the alternative line. In this thread, I also want to penalise declarer because of what she said. She said "if clubs break". The TD interprets that as "breaks 3-3" as no other meaning is plausible. The clubs did not break 3-3, therefore she takes the diamond finesse.

There is that dangerous word again.

Of all the words I have ever looked up in a dictionary, break has the longest entry. Among its other meanings are "a sudden piece of good fortune". Thus if the claim statement was "If there is a favourable break in clubs...." it would certainly include all winning layouts in the club suit, so it seems unreasonably pedantic to claim that the statements "a favourable break in clubs" and "clubs breaking" embrace two different strategies in playing the suit.

[barmar]

Them's the breaks.