[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 07:04, said:

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

Because the peer didn't claim. The fact that this declarer didn't see the need to explain implies that he recognizes that the free finesse solved the club problem and gave him a sure 13th trick.

Since the other player played the queen, he obviously didn't notice this.

Yes, I realize this opens the way to a form of cheating -- just face your hand and you'll automatically get the benefit of the doubt. But most situations aren't so clear-cut that you can take advantage of this (e.g. some of the threads we've had in the past where clever unblocking plays are needed).

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

[barmar]

BTW, if you play against the BBO robots, these "benefit of the doubt" claims work -- which can be useful if you've forgotten whether a spot card is high or an opponent has already shown out of a suit you need to finesse. The software doesn't provide a way for you to explain your line to the robots, so the system just checks whether there's any sure line (just given what a declarer with perfect memory would know) for the number of tricks you're claiming.

On the other hand, if you claim less than the number of tricks you could make, it doesn't reject the claim. In most cases where I've made claims like this, I could lose those tricks by careless play, so it's not a violation of the law that says you mustn't accept tricks you couldn't win.

[lamford]

I would adjust the score to 7NTx=. East-West won't contest the claim next time. Also the contract is cold if the queen of clubs is played from dummy. Declarer cashes two diamonds and then three spades catches West in a show-up squeeze and declarer makes four heart tricks without the finesse he is not allowed to take! That is how RR would play it.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-April-11, 09:00, said:

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

The rules are the rules. I do not understand people who think they can do whatever they hell they want, regardless what the rules say. As for "no one would ever do that", you are demonstrably wrong, since I not only would do that, I do do that. Not always, I admit, but if there's any line of play that might not work, I do.

One purpose, it seems to me, for the requirement to state your line of play is so that the director (not to mention your opponents) doesn't have to try to get into your head to see whether you saw a potential problem.

[pran]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 07:04, said:

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

barmar, on 2018-April-11, 09:00, said:

Because the peer didn't claim. The fact that this declarer didn't see the need to explain implies that he recognizes that the free finesse solved the club problem and gave him a sure 13th trick.

Since the other player played the queen, he obviously didn't notice this.

Yes, I realize this opens the way to a form of cheating -- just face your hand and you'll automatically get the benefit of the doubt. But most situations aren't so clear-cut that you can take advantage of this (e.g. some of the threads we've had in the past where clever unblocking plays are needed).

The problem with trying to apply the claim law literally is that it says you have to give a complete explanation -- you'd have to list all 13 tricks in the order you're going to take them. No one would ever do that, and I don't think any of you expect it. So the question is really where do you draw the line? Would you accept "I'll take the free finesse in clubs and then there are 12 top tricks." If so, why are you less worried about a careless play of the remaining 12 tricks than the first trick? Just because some other player happened to be careless at that point? That was not just a careless play, it was (IMHO) stupid.

The fact that the peer didn't claim is irrelevant.
The fact that the peer played the ♣Q in exactly the same situation is evidence that playing the ♣Q is "normal" (as defined in Law 70E1) for players of this class in this situation.

Claiming without even bothering to follow suit from Dummy at trick 1 shows serious disrespect to the relevant laws on claiming.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 13:07, said:

Claiming without even bothering to follow suit from Dummy at trick 1 shows serious disrespect to the relevant laws on claiming.

Not claiming at trick one, playing from dummy and waiting any time at all for East to think about how he might defend shows serious disrespect to Law 74B4:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

I would impose a PP on declarer if he DID play from dummy at trick one, unless of course he actually played the queen.

[nige1]

MrAce, Lamford, and Barmar are right that the claim is likely to be predicated on declarer's realization that the opening lead ensured 13 tricks.

The contrary views of Sven and co are equally worth consideration, however. In particular, it seems wrong that directors routinely rule in favor of players who deliberately break the law by failing to make a proper claim statement.

It's remarkable how often directors are evenly split between conflicting rulings in claim-cases. Obviously, rule-makers could simplify duplicate claim-law enough to produce more consistent rulings. Perhaps, along the lines of rubber-bridge or on-line claim law.

[MrAce]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 07:04, said:

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

He should lose the board for playing Q at T1 and not be rewarded when TD obviously knows what declarer meant when other player claimed silently.
But according to some of you, the silence of declarer meant something else and lack of explanation gives auto reward/penalty for one side. This is what i disagree.

[mink]

lamford, on 2018-April-11, 11:37, said:

... Also the contract is cold if the queen of clubs is played from dummy. Declarer cashes two diamonds and then three spades catches West in a show-up squeeze and declarer makes four heart tricks without the finesse he is not allowed to take! That is how RR would play it.

I also considered this line of play, but found that West can still discard a ♦ on the third round of ♠ - no squeeze.

[MrAce]

Okay, I admit I expected a full support for the TD decision on this one.
Blackshoe is the only one I give credit to among those who disagrees with me and I was surprised. Rest of them are unknown by me (they are new to forums or to forums that I read and write more often than this one) and 1 very well known troll (at least for good players in BBF) among them. Who always makes me feel like worshiping Hroathgar, Fred and Wank!

Fwiw, I polled this at BW.

https://bridgewinner...m-2-m8wxg62i68/

[mink]

If declarer really knows that he has to care for the ♣10 and does not like to talk so much, he can easily play ♣8 from the dummy and then claim immediately. Claiming without playing any card and without saying anything can have 2 reasons:

• He thinks that it is obvious for everybody that the 8 must be played now.
  
• He fails to see that a 5-0 break of ♣ creates a problem.

The second might occur due to euphoria about having bid a grand slam that appears to make or by just miscalculating the ♣ cards that are left for defenders. Evidence for the failure to see the problem is that he does not mention the possible 5-0 break and does not play a card from the dummy before claiming. If he really fails to see the problem, ♣Queen is a normal play, as others have pointed out already.

I do not accept the idea that the fact that a claim was made is evidence that problem was envisioned by declarer. This is just nonsense.

Regarding the class of player involved, of course the probability of not seeing the problem becomes smaller the smarter the declarer appears to be. But it never reaches zero. So even if I truly believe that this declarer, whom I know and admire as a bridge player, should see the problem, I shall rule against him at this occasion. But I doubt that such a player would make such a claim without statement.

Karl

[MrAce]

Deleted; I was wrong about David Burn's reply.

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2018-April-11, 17:36, said:

Deleted; I was wrong about David Burn's reply.

LOL did you expect him to support your opinion and he did not?

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-11, 17:43, said:

LOL did you expect him to support your opinion and he did not?

No, he wrote something that no one understood first, as he always does in his high chair, and I thought that was David Gold first.
I know David Gold would never agree with those who thinks TD was wrong, so that led me to think different of what Mr. Burn wrote.
I may be wrong about decision of David Gold, since he did not vote or commented yet, we will see soon.
But I think Kit Woolsey nailed it.

[lamford]

I agree with gordontd that the queen is the only normal play but only unless the suit is led. I think that an immediate claim (without playing a card from dummy) is correct when West leads. There is no need for any statement. The ruling on this hand is trivial in my view and anyone ruling one down would just cause me to boycott any events they run and I would encourage others to do so. Barmar's explanation above is conclusive for me.

Most interesting is when a spade is led, and declarer claims silently. Now I think declarer goes down, as playing the queen of clubs first is automatic and playing for the drop in hearts is (vastly) inferior but just a careless line. On a spade lead, if there is Qx of hearts onside, declarer gets to make anyway, as there is no "normal" line which fails.

[lamford]

MrAce, on 2018-April-11, 18:10, said:

No, he wrote something that no one understood first, as he always does in his high chair, and I thought that was David Gold first.
I know David Gold would never agree with those who thinks TD was wrong, so that led me to think different of what Mr. Burn wrote.
I may be wrong about decision of David Gold, since he did not vote or commented yet, we will see soon.
But I think Kit Woolsey nailed it.

That response of DavidBurn's is pretty standard. I know that he would not rule that way - at least I have never come across a ruling of his which is other than balanced and fair - but he seems to enjoy his hobby horse of ruling claims in a forum in the most disadvantageous way for the declarer!

[Vampyr]

There are two problems with allowing claims such as this.

The first is that, suppose at an adjacent table there is a player who is not very strong, and cannot be assumed to have noticed the possibility of a 5-0 club break. Do you rule against him, lending credence to the opinion, held by a fair number of players, that bridge is designed to advantage the elite?

Also, once we start assuming what declarer has “obviously” “implied”, “obvious” becomes less and less so. There is no reason whatsoever to refuse to utter a brief claim statement. “13 tricks on the club lead” or in this case, why not play a card to the first trick and then claim? If there were some reason not to do one of these things, I would have a lot more sympathy with allowing the TD’s ruling.

[Vampyr]

Someone on Bridge Winners said exactly what I was thinking. The reason not to even do so much as play the first card from Dummy feels that it is much cooler not to.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-11, 23:21, said:

Someone on Bridge Winners said exactly what I was thinking. The reason not to even do so much as play the first card from Dummy feels that it is much cooler not to.

The other reason is that you now have 6 club tricks and 7 more outside no matter what the club position is. I'm struggling to see how a claim that includes a statement along the lines of "now I have 6 club tricks" is any more clear than just showing my hand - how else do we expect declarer to count to 13 here?

The idea of even questioning this as an opponent is genuinely bizarre to me. And the opponent's level doesn't matter - I'm accepting from the beginner who took up the game last week.

[sfi]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 13:07, said:

Claiming without even bothering to follow suit from Dummy at trick 1 shows serious disrespect to the relevant laws on claiming.

In a thread full of strange assertions, this is undoubtedly the silliest. How do you get to this conclusion?

And what about my opponent who recently asked dummy whether she had what she had shown in the auction, while I was contemplating the opening lead? When she said yes, declarer showed his hand and claimed all 13 tricks. We moved on, only distracted by the requirement to enter a lead into the bridgemate.