[RMB1]

helene_t, on 2013-November-20, 10:36, said:

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

The technical answer is no, because law 12 is not being applied when we rule on a claim. The claim laws talk about awarding tricks not assigning scores.

The non-technical answer is that the laws do not want players claiming equity: I claim 9.5 tricks on the two-way finesse.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2013-November-20, 10:36, said:

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

I don't know if Australia uses weighted scores. I do know it would reinforce my opinion of them if weight were given to cashing the Diamond Ace or pitching it before going after the tricks Declarer mentioned in his claim.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-20, 10:18, said:

It is not consistent with the claim statement. He said nothing about the Diamond ACE; he only mentioned dummy's Clubs. I logically conclude he will go to dummy now and will start the clubs at some point. Whenever he does that, there are two tricks for the defense ---making 3.

Well, equally he said nothing about spades. He has not specified, apart from the three clubs, which tricks he intends to win, and he has four winners outside clubs. Diamond, spade, spade, club, club, club seems just as consistent as spade, spade, spade, club, club, club.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2013-November-20, 10:36, said:

shouldn't we give a weighted score in such a case?

No. Adjudication of a claim is not a score adjustment.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-November-20, 12:36, said:

Well, equally he said nothing about spades. He has not specified, apart from the three clubs, which tricks he intends to win, and he has four winners outside clubs. Diamond, spade, spade, club, club, club seems just as consistent as spade, spade, spade, club, club, club.

spades are implied as the way to get to dummy to play clubs. The Diamond Ace is not in his claim claim at all. Bringing in the Diamond Ace is a way to punish rather than adjudicate Declarer's mistake, though; what fun.

The good news is, however, that you folks found the "obscure losing line" the OP used in his subtitle, and an even more obscure one to go down two.

[sfi]

Declarer doesn't even need to cash the DA to lose 3 tricks. SA, SK, C9 pitching a small spade means that declarer will have to give up a diamond trick as well as the heart and club.

Law 70A requires the director to resolve any doubtful points against the claimer. Declarer did not state an order in which these good tricks would be cashed, and there's nothing abnormal about cashing the DA or switching to clubs after cashing two spades. As a result, Law 70D points to a result of -1. The "logical conclusion" that declarer will not cash the diamond ace, will play the tricks in an unstated order when all tricks are high, or will hold onto a particular meaningless small card all appear to violate this requirement.

[billw55]

Agua, I agree with you to an extent. Given the claim statement as presented, it does seem reasonable to enforce a line of play that goes after club tricks immediately. So spade to dummy (ace first or not), and a club. So the obvious question is, what do we assume declarer pitches from his hand? You might consider pitching the ♦A to be silly, but IMO pitching a low spade is not. So I do think down one is reasonable. Remember, declarer thinks dummy is good and that pitches from his hand do not matter. Following his statement, he plans to cash three clubs, so will pitch three cards from hand. We are kindly assuming he will pitch only low cards, but I see no reason at all to assume any particular order for those low cards.

Interestingly, I wonder if this is somewhat analogous to a 46B5 situation. I know it isn't dummy, but after the claim declarer's hand is exposed and it is sort of double dummy. And declarer's claim is effectively a statement that dummy is good and discards from his hand do not matter. Should defenders be able to name the card declarer pitches from hand? I know the laws don't say this at all, I am just pondering it in principle.

[blackshoe]

It is up to the TD, not the defenders, to decide how the play might go. Defenders might suggest a particular line as part of their statement of objections to the claim, though.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2013-November-21, 07:31, said:

Agua, I agree with you to an extent. Given the claim statement as presented, it does seem reasonable to enforce a line of play that goes after club tricks immediately.

Why is that? If I have ♠AK32 ♥AK32 ♦- ♣2 opposite ♠- ♥- ♦5432 ♣AK543 with 2 clubs out and claim saying "the clubs are good", I would hope it is obvious that the intent is to cash the major suit AKs first before playing clubs (would anyone object?). Similarly, if I claim "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds and a club", this is probably not a statement defining the order in which the cards are cashed. There is plenty of case law establishing this principle.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-21, 09:24, said:

Why is that? If I have ♠AK32 ♥AK32 ♦- ♣2 opposite ♠- ♥- ♦5432 ♣AK543 with 2 clubs out and claim saying "the clubs are good", I would hope it is obvious that the intent is to cash the major suit AKs first before playing clubs (would anyone object?). Similarly, if I claim "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds and a club", this is probably not a statement defining the order in which the cards are cashed. There is plenty of case law establishing this principle.

I meant in this situation particularly. In a different situation, something different might be obvious and/or reasonable. Clearly in your example, declarer has in no way suggested that he thinks all the cards in dummy are good. Whereas in the OP, he clearly did so.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-21, 09:24, said:

Why is that? If I have ♠AK32 ♥AK32 ♦- ♣2 opposite ♠- ♥- ♦5432 ♣AK543 with 2 clubs out and claim saying "the clubs are good", I would hope it is obvious that the intent is to cash the major suit AKs first before playing clubs (would anyone object?). Similarly, if I claim "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds and a club", this is probably not a statement defining the order in which the cards are cashed. There is plenty of case law establishing this principle.

The law requires claimer to state the order in which he proposes to take his tricks. If he does not do so, also says the law, the benefit of the doubt goes to his opponent.

If there's case law that says, in general, that "four spades, five hearts, three diamonds, and a club" does not state the order in which the player proposes to take his tricks, IMO that case law is wrong. It assumes that the claimer did not follow the law, when he may well have. I think the TD needs to investigate, and not rely on flawed precedent.