[eagles123]

Cyber nailed this imo, whilst I enjoy your SB ruling topics, this one is just beyond ridiculous.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2016-October-25, 06:16, said:

"Just one last question", asked SB. "There is a rule that I get a drink for winning the last trick with the seven of diamonds. "Mine is a Hennessey VSOP, please", SB put to WW, but the latter seemed to be reluctant to comply.

How would you rule? And should SB get his drink?

Even that he got wrong. It's the beer card.I'll have the Hennesey.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2016-October-25, 09:18, said:

If you don't think SB's line is "normal", which particular play in his line is worse than careless?

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

[broze]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-26, 06:30, said:

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

Absolutely. Lamford's comment is a non-sequitur. It's really pretty simple I think - see my comment above. Is the line proposed by SB normal? No - not by any definition of normal.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-26, 06:30, said:

I've been trying hard to keep out of this thread, but I don't think this sophistry can go unchallenged!

It's quite possible for a play not to be normal but to have been carefully made and indeed I think the whole plan posited by SB would fall within that category.

You would be right if the line proposed by SB required "care". It does not. Let us surmise that it was played out for a moment. Declarer is asked to play it out and wrongly does so. He cashes the ace, king and queen of diamonds and calls for "any" from dummy, still making the contract of course. Dummy plays the highest diamonds and the opponents do not object. Now declarer cashes three rounds of hearts. He thinks he has more winners than he needs so discards one of them. At this point, only a "careful" small club suffices. A "careless" top spade (followed by a "careless" spade discarding a diamond) or careless top diamond both fail.

There is nothing in the plan posited by SB which requires declarer to be "careful". Au contraire, declarer needs to either "carefully" specify "small" when he cashes top diamonds, or "carefully" notice that the clubs are blocked.

The only relevant part of this ruling is whether you think the line of cashing three top diamonds and not specifying "small" on them is worse than careless. I think it is just that. "Careless". Within the meaning of the Act, m'lud.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2016-October-25, 13:04, said:

This was a real hand? At a top event? If so I'd love to know who the defender was that challenged this claim.

This was not a real hand. But the principle that the declarer claimed when the clubs were blocked and he had not noticed it is very similar.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 07:35, said:

This was not a real hand. But the principle that the declarer claimed when the clubs were blocked and he had not noticed it is very similar.

Interesting. Although I would prefer to see the real hand and decide for myself how similar it is.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 07:32, said:

You would be right if the line proposed by SB required "care". It does not. Let us surmise that it was played out for a moment. Declarer is asked to play it out and wrongly does so. He cashes the ace, king and queen of diamonds and calls for "any" from dummy, still making the contract of course. Dummy plays the highest diamonds and the opponents do not object. Now declarer cashes three rounds of hearts. He thinks he has more winners than he needs so discards one of them. At this point, only a "careful" small club suffices. A "careless" top spade (followed by a "careless" spade discarding a diamond) or careless top diamond both fail.

There is nothing in the plan posited by SB which requires declarer to be "careful". Au contraire, declarer needs to either "carefully" specify "small" when he cashes top diamonds, or "carefully" notice that the clubs are blocked.

The only relevant part of this ruling is whether you think the line of cashing three top diamonds and not specifying "small" on them is worse than careless. I think it is just that. "Careless". Within the meaning of the Act, m'lud.

The original post said:

Quote

cash three top diamonds, unblocking the ten, nine and eight

Unblocking carelessly, three times?

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-October-26, 08:17, said:

The original post said:

Quote

cash three top diamonds, unblocking the ten, nine and eight

Unblocking carelessly, three times?

That was SB's claim. He would express himself in the most annoying and grating manner, as is his wont. After all, did not Mollo call him the Emeritus Professor of Sophistry?

However, as blackshoe has stated many times, it is not SB's job to rule and his remarks have no relevance. The TD should ignore that fatuous comment and consider the following as a normal line: "To cash three top diamonds, following randomly from dummy as it surely cannot matter. The declarer will be assumed to play "any", just as he would be assumed not to unblock the three top diamonds if it was necessary. So is he is deemed to play the ten, nine and eight, the worst line. Now declarer still has one more winner than he needs, so he cashes either three hearts throwing a diamond, or three hearts throwing a spade and then the spade throwing a diamond (the two worst "normal" lines). Now he has five club tricks, but cannot get at them and is one down. This is quite likely to be what might happen if I or you played the hand out. Carelessly. The "careful" player would say "small" rather than "any" on each of the three top diamonds, and his "care" is rewarded when the seven of diamonds does not fall!

I very much hope you would rule against WW if the ten and seven of diamonds were transposed. This case is much closer.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2016-October-26, 08:15, said:

Interesting. Although I would prefer to see the real hand and decide for myself how similar it is.

I have been looking on Bridgewinners. I found a reference to the 7NT claim against Monaco but no link within that thread. I think it might have been Opatija but I am unsure. Essentially, declarer needed to unblock clubs (which were more obviously blocked than the ones in this claim), with plenty of entries to do so, but was ruled one off.

It is worth noting that 757 threads on Bridgewinners had "Claim" in the title. It seems that this is a neglected skill in bridge, and maybe we should brush up on our claiming technique. I did find a Dburn post where he thought that any legal play (consistent with the claim) which defeated declarer should be enforced, although I (and the laws) disagree with this.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 08:32, said:

I have been looking on Bridgewinners. I found a reference to the 7NT claim against Monaco but no link within that thread. I think it might have been Opatija but I am unsure. Essentially, declarer needed to unblock clubs, with plenty of entries to do so, but was ruled one off.

I guess I will take your word for it, if you are sure.

Note though that in the hand posted here, declarer does not need to unblock clubs.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2016-October-26, 08:42, said:

Note though that in the hand posted here, declarer does not need to unblock clubs.

Right, that's what makes this disputed claim so incredulous. All he has to do is NOT block the other suits by discarding clear winners that are useful for transportation.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2016-October-26, 08:42, said:

I guess I will take your word for it, if you are sure.

Note though that in the hand posted here, declarer does not need to unblock clubs.

I am only going on memory regarding that 7NT.

The reason he does not need to unblock clubs is because he has 14 winners. But he does need to avoid an ending with the clubs blocked and needing five tricks in that suit. Another failing line is to play the queen of spades on the first round - again it surely does not matter. Now if he elects to pitch a spade winner instead of a club winner on dummy's master heart, after cashing four rounds of diamonds he is one off. People do some very odd things when they think they have 14 tricks, much of it for show.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-October-26, 09:03, said:

Right, that's what makes this disputed claim so incredulous. All he has to do is NOT block the other suits by discarding clear winners that are useful for transportation.

None of the other suits are potentially blocked. If he needed to overtake the second heart to make the contract, he would be deemed to do so. There is a HUGE difference between getting three tricks from AQ opposite KJx and getting five tricks from AKQxx opposite xxxx when they break 3-1 or better.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-25, 07:40, said:

On your amended hand, a microsecond's thought when you find the diamonds fail to split would reveal you have to play clubs next and in practice nobody ever cashes the spades or hearts before the clubs.

If the clubs were not blocked it would not matter one iota which winners you played first. Nor would it matter whether the diamonds split. To rule that someone makes when the jack or ten of diamonds is still out is appalling. (I assume that you are referring to the interchange of the ten and seven of diamonds.)

Law 68C says that declarer states the order in which he plays his (remaining) cards. If he does not do so, and there is a "normal" order which fails, that order is imposed.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 09:37, said:

Law 68C says that declarer states the order in which he plays his (remaining) cards. If he does not do so, and there is a "normal" order which fails, that order is imposed.

The problem is that SB interprets "normal" much the same way he does "could have known" -- so liberally that the words lose all practical use in making a ruling. If the lawmakers had meant "possible", they would have said that instead of "normal".

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-October-26, 09:49, said:

The problem is that SB interprets "normal" much the same way he does "could have known" -- so liberally that the words lose all practical use in making a ruling. If the lawmakers had meant "possible", they would have said that instead of "normal".

If you interchange the jack and seven of diamonds, then it is clear that this is a normal line: Win the spade lead, cash the ace of clubs noting that they break, cash three top diamonds noting that they do not break, overtake the second heart and throw the diamond loser on the third heart, and then enjoy the clubs. Oops ...

Do you agree that would be a normal line?

If a line is 100%, as is cashing the three top diamonds, calling for "any" from dummy, then that should be normal. If I were making a claim here, I would state as follows:

"Unblocking the clubs". That would be quite enough.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 10:03, said:

If you interchange the jack and seven of diamonds, then it is clear that this is a normal line:

That's very different. The original hand had a solid suit of all winners, now it doesn't, and you have to cater to the possible loser. You don't start with 14 winners as in the original post.

Minor differences like this can indeed change the considerations.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-October-26, 17:59, said:

That's very different. The original hand had a solid suit of all winners, now it doesn't, and you have to cater to the possible loser. You don't start with 14 winners as in the original post.

Minor differences like this can indeed change the considerations.

Both hands have a club suit which is potentially blocked, and not obviously so at first glance. If any order of winners followed by the clubs still made the contract, then it obviously makes. I accept the unanimous view that playing high diamonds on the AKQ is not normal, but if the ten of diamonds was in the opposing hand and still out, then I would rule one down. If dummy had ♠Jx, then I would also rule one down. There is no reason to play any winner in preference to another winner.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2016-October-26, 08:28, said:

After all, did not Mollo call him the Emeritus Professor of Sophistry?

No, he didn't. He called him the Emeritus Professor of Bio-Sophistry.