[MrAce]

So, no one up for the procedural penalty?
To West player of course for calling the TD!

[sfi]

No, but they're off my potential teammate list for sure.

[lamford]

MrAce, on 2018-April-12, 01:04, said:

So, no one up for the procedural penalty?
To West player of course for calling the TD!

No, you cannot give a PP for calling the TD. Although you can give him a PP for:
"summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." The interpretation of that is .... in the hands of the TD. And if he complains, double his PP and give him a red card as Buffon correctly had.

[barmar]

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

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.

It may also be evidence that these two players are not in the same class. Only an incompetent player would refuse a free finesse in a situation like this.

There are times when you do have to refuse a free finesse, due to transportation issues. This is not one of them, so it's just stupid to play the Q, not merely careless, IMHO.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-April-12, 11:07, said:

It may also be evidence that these two players are not in the same class. Only an incompetent player would refuse a free finesse in a situation like this.

There are times when you do have to refuse a free finesse, due to transportation issues. This is not one of them, so it's just stupid to play the Q, not merely careless, IMHO.

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

I have commented on this hand on Bridgewinners. The problem is: there is no definition of 'normal' or to what extent/ when does 'careless or inferior' morph into 'not normal'. (Obviously we have the same problem with UI cases where 'class of player' is specifically mentioned.)

Looking at the problem in another light: WW/ TT would play the Queen, HH would run the club to his hand, RR wouldn't spot the Queen of clubs anyway. I would rule in favour of CC/ Papa as well - and obviously for Karapet.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-April-13, 01:53, said:

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

I have commented on this hand on Bridgewinners. The problem is: there is no definition of 'normal' or to what extent/ when does 'careless or inferior' morph into 'not normal'. (Obviously we have the same problem with UI cases where 'class of player' is specifically mentioned.)

Looking at the problem in another light: WW/ TT would play the Queen, HH would run the club to his hand, RR wouldn't spot the Queen of clubs anyway. I would rule in favour of CC/ Papa as well - and obviously for Karapet.

Karapet would not have been blessed with the luck of a club lead. He would have had a spade lead, tested the clubs and found they were not breaking, and realised he needed four heart tricks. He would notice that he could pick up ♥Q932 or ♥9732 onside if he started with the ace. If there was ♥Q972 or ♥Q973 onside, he needed to run the ten and then run the eight. He correctly worked out that cashing the ace first was right, as RR should duck the 8 with 97x on the second round! This time West did have ♥Q97x! The Witch of Ararat had already caused him to lose the toss of the coin 173 times out of 173 Crockfords matches, so he certainly would never claim!

[Edited for fascinating suit combination which I got wrong twice!]

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2018-April-13, 01:53, said:

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal.

My contention is that the silent claim before playing the Q strongly suggests that the player sees the free finesse and realizes there's no need to refuse it. Playing the Q at the other table indicates that that player didn't notice this or didn't think it was relevant for some reason (he miscounted clubs or didn't consider a bad break).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-April-13, 09:14, said:

My contention is that the silent claim before playing the Q strongly suggests that the player sees the free finesse and realizes there's no need to refuse it.

My contention is that the silent claim before playing small strongly suggests... well not really, but who knows?

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

I recently had to make a ruling on a bad claim. I knew that the player knew what was going on; he is a frequent partner of mine and a good player. I would rather be a bit of a stickler in order to ensure a level playing field.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-13, 10:14, said:

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

The TD. And she doesn't impose plays like the queen of clubs that are Upney or Becontree (beyond Barking for those that are unfamiliar with the Underground). A much tougher decision here is what happens if declarer claims silently on a spade lead.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2018-April-13, 11:57, said:

The TD.

Yes, this is he problem. Every TD in the world will have a different threshold to what is “obvious”.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-13, 10:14, said:

And who is to be the worldwide arbiter of what is “obvious” and which silent claims should be accepted?

The same arbiter of what is pornography versus erotica. If "I know it when I see it" is good enough for a Supreme Court justice, it's good enough for me.

[blackshoe]

Pfui. Real life is not a game. Bridge is.

[MrAce]

lamford, on 2018-April-13, 11:57, said:

A much tougher decision here is what happens if declarer claims silently on a spade lead.

Not tough at all for me.
7 NT -1

Having said that, it would be tougher if ♥Q was dropping on AK, silent claim forcing declarer not to take the % ♥ finesse, will result in favor of declarer, whereas had he played or made a statement he would probably go down.
I think you TDs know what to do much better than me in that kind of scenarios. But my own logic says I should rule 7 NT -1 even if Q was dropping.

[ahydra]

MrAce, on 2018-April-15, 19:00, said:

Not tough at all for me.
7 NT -1

Having said that, it would be tougher if ♥Q was dropping on AK, silent claim forcing declarer not to take the % ♥ finesse, will result in favor of declarer, whereas had he played or made a statement he would probably go down.
I think you TDs know what to do much better than me in that kind of scenarios. But my own logic says I should rule 7 NT -1 even if Q was dropping.

I think the law (70E1) agrees with you.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-April-15, 10:36, said:

The same arbiter of what is pornography versus erotica. If "I know it when I see it" is good enough for a Supreme Court justice, it's good enough for me.

blackshoe, on 2018-April-15, 12:42, said:

Pfui. Real life is not a game. Bridge is.

Well, yes. I don’t think that barmar is being serious, as he obviously sees the problem with this approach.

[lamford]

MrAce, on 2018-April-15, 19:00, said:

But my own logic says I should rule 7 NT -1 even if Q was dropping.

On a spade lead, if the queen of hearts is doubleton onside, I think the laws require you to award the contract. If it is doubleton offside, I think the heart finesses is a "normal" line and therefore it is one off. If the queen of hearts is onside but sufficiently guarded, I think you award one off, but there are TDs who would award 7NT= in that playing for the drop in hearts is not a "normal" line (depending on the class of player). 70E1 has been modified in the 2017 laws preventing a finesse even if it is the only "normal" line of play, unless it becomes marked because someone shows out.

[sfi]

lamford, on 2018-April-16, 05:01, said:

On a spade lead, if the queen of hearts is doubleton onside, I think the laws require you to award the contract.

I'm not so sure about that. Claiming on a spade lead suggests to me that declarer thinks there are 6 club tricks. On a similar BridgeWinners topic, Laurie Kelso says that it is not normal play for declarer to fail to notice that the CJ is still outstanding when running a suit (this one was AK9xx opposite QTx). However, the ten is a much easier card to miss, so why would you not assume that declarer has just miscounted clubs and award down one?