[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-April-16, 05:06, said:

I am not aware of it. Perhaps you can locate it and provide a link? If play had proceeded, a careless declarer might have played a heart to the ten and not reacted to West's card, so playing the ten of hearts on the second round, as stated, is "normal". We have all done it. If he had said "taking the heart finesse", I think he should be awarded the contract. As stated, I think I should have ruled one down, but I did not.

It was actually at Bridge Winners, not here. In http://bridgewinners...ing-on-a-claim/ Roland Voigt wrote:

Quote

There are guidelines for contested claims which state:

• if the claimer misspeaks in his claim statement (i.e. undoubtedly had a different intention), the claim should be adjudicated based on the claimer's intention;
  
• the claimer is allowed to notice exceptional occurrences. Suppose, for example, declarer (in a trump contract) says that he will cross to his hand by ruffing and draw the remaining trumps. If the player in front of him ruffs first, he is allowed to notice this and overruff, rather than playing a smaller trump under it.

I'm not sure where he's quoting from (it's not the EBU White Book), but this seems to be an example of the second bullet. There's also some of the first bullet -- he misspoke when being specific about the 10, rather than just saying that he would play a high enough card to win the finesse.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-April-16, 13:21, said:

He misspoke when being specific about the 10, rather than just saying that he would play a high enough card to win the finesse.

That is an approach. And indeed, if play had proceeded and declarer misspoke and said "ten" when West played the king, some (bad) TDs might decide that his incontrovertible intention was to play the ace and allow the change. However, I don't see any facility in the Laws for TDs to correct obvious errors in a claim, despite what Roland Volgt posted. In that example, declarer claimed stating that he would run the clubs and I think that is what he should have been forced to do, and I think 81% of people agreed.

I would prefer that the claim laws included a phrase "except where declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". But they don't. So I think declarer is always bound by his claim statement if it can be followed, with any doubt about meaning resolved in favour of the defenders. In this case, declarer stated he was playing the ten of hearts on the second round of the suit. That is what he should be forced to do.

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2018-April-13, 22:20, said:

DP to SB for his manner.

The WBF Code of Practice says that "a player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism". - Roland Volgt

[barmar]

Someone else responded and pointed out where that guideline comes from. It's apparently derived from the EBU White Book section 8.70.8 (although worded differently), which references a WBFLC minute from 2001.

So we're not supposed to be sticklers for the exact words in the claim statement, but understand the intent.

[pescetom]

According to the OP, the claim by HH contained the phrase "If you have Grosvenor'd me, ChCh, you can have your little chuckle."
Does this not indicate that his chosen line of play would fail if the king of hearts was on the right, and thus by clear implication that it was aimed to capture the king on the left?

[WellSpyder]

pescetom, on 2018-April-17, 09:43, said:

According to the OP, the claim by HH contained the phrase "If you have Grosvenor'd me, ChCh, you can have your little chuckle."
Does this not indicate that his chosen line of play would fail if the king of hearts was on the right, and thus by clear implication that it was aimed to capture the king on the left?

Yes.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-April-17, 09:43, said:

According to the OP, the claim by HH contained the phrase "If you have Grosvenor'd me, ChCh, you can have your little chuckle."
Does this not indicate that his chosen line of play would fail if the king of hearts was on the right, and thus by clear implication that it was aimed to capture the king on the left?

I am all in favour of interpreting declarer's line of play differently to that which he stated and I did so rule (yes the case is actual, with considerable embellishment and a change to the dramatis personae). It would be better if the claim law, as with the card called from dummy, also had "unless declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" and that would give TD's discretion in cases like this. I guess the "equitably as possible" does give the TD such discretion.

Out of interest, how would people have ruled if declarer had actually crossed to hand and played a heart, and had called "ten of hearts" while West was playing the king and then changed it to king immediately? His "incontrovertible intention" would have been equally clear.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-April-18, 04:48, said:

Out of interest, how would people have ruled if declarer had actually crossed to hand and played a heart, and had called "ten of hearts" while West was playing the king and then changed it to king immediately? His "incontrovertible intention" would have been equally clear.

"Incontrovertible intention" is only mentioned in the law on incomplete designations. Since "ten of hearts" is complete, that law doesn't apply.

But even if he'd said just "ten", I'd rule against him. This is clearly a case of change of mind because he wasn't paying attention and didn't notice that the king was played.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2018-April-18, 04:48, said:

...yes the case is actual, with considerable embellishment and a change to the dramatis personae)....

I don't understand how this case can ever reach a TD in real life. Why would any West other than SB ask for a ruling?

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2018-April-18, 09:51, said:

I don't understand how this case can ever reach a TD in real life. Why would any West other than SB ask for a ruling?

I don't think it is wrong to ask for a ruling on a claim where declarer's stated line of play, to play a heart to the ten on the second round of trumps, fails if either opponent has the king, and only works if either opponent can and does withhold the king on the second round! The actual West who did not understand the claim was a beginner who had never seen a finesse, let alone a Grosvenor Coup, before. "If you are going to play the ten, why can't I play the king?" she asked.

David Burn put it succinctly on Bridgewinners: "I don't want to win because my opponent makes a bum claim, but if his claim is adjudicated according to the rules and this costs [the event], that doesn't mean I should not have had the claim adjudicated." The DPs should be given to those posters agreeing with a DP for SB in this case.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-April-18, 09:11, said:

But even if he'd said just "ten", I'd rule against him. This is clearly a case of change of mind because he wasn't paying attention and didn't notice that the king was played.

What is the difference between saying "ten of hearts" at trick four when declarer plays on, and stating that you are going to play the ten of hearts on trick four when claiming? Does that not prevent declarer carelessly not noticing that the king is played?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-April-17, 08:32, said:

Someone else responded and pointed out where that guideline comes from. It's apparently derived from the EBU White Book section 8.70.8 (although worded differently), which references a WBFLC minute from 2001.

Clearly all TDs should be carrying that guideline around with them before ruling on a claim. Actually it has no relevance whatsoever in this case, as the heading of that minute, and the White Book section, is:
Law 70E: Unstated line of play in claim [WBFLC]
It is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see

Here there was a stated line of play, a heart to the ten on the second round of the suit, so the TD cannot apply that minute. By implication, with a stated line of play, declarer does not take into account what he would see, but follows the stated line willy-nilly. For what it is worth, the 19% of people who voted to allow the claim in the Bridgewinners thread you linked are also wrong for the same reason.

[msjennifer]

If the declarer had told the director that if his RHO grossveneered him then the contract should be allowed.But if had told the RHO and not the director the same thing then it shall be ruled as down one.The declarer had specifically said that he would lead a heart to the 10.(Mark you director has to go exactly as per the explanation and not consider what was the real intention) However the declarer should simply have said “I just cover the card which his LHO plays “,then the opponents couldn’t have anything to say.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-April-19, 08:06, said:

Clearly all TDs should be carrying that guideline around with them before ruling on a claim. Actually it has no relevance whatsoever in this case, as the heading of that minute, and the White Book section, is:
Law 70E: Unstated line of play in claim [WBFLC]
It is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see

Here there was a stated line of play, a heart to the ten on the second round of the suit, so the TD cannot apply that minute. By implication, with a stated line of play, declarer does not take into account what he would see, but follows the stated line willy-nilly. For what it is worth, the 19% of people who voted to allow the claim in the Bridgewinners thread you linked are also wrong for the same reason.

In this context, "unstated line of play" doesn't mean that declarer didn't state a line of play, it refers to things omitted from his statement. E.g. if he says "ruffing a club", but doesn't explicitly say "overruffing if necessary", the latter clarification is "unstated".

And what the committee said is that declarer is normally presumed to notice these occurrences and adjust accordingly.

Going back to the original issue, "to the 10" could just be a sloppy way of saying "towards the 10". Would you rule that the latter also means he plays to play the 10 no matter what LHO plays?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-April-19, 09:20, said:

In this context, "unstated line of play" doesn't mean that declarer didn't state a line of play, it refers to things omitted from his statement. E.g. if he says "ruffing a club", but doesn't explicitly say "overruffing if necessary", the latter clarification is "unstated".

And what the committee said is that declarer is normally presumed to notice these occurrences and adjust accordingly.

Going back to the original issue, "to the 10" could just be a sloppy way of saying "towards the 10". Would you rule that the latter also means he plays to play the 10 no matter what LHO plays?

No, "towards the ten" indicates that the direction matters, and the only reason the direction can matter is that he is intending to finesse the ten if West does not play the king.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-April-19, 08:06, said:

Clearly all TDs should be carrying that guideline around with them before ruling on a claim. Actually it has no relevance whatsoever in this case, as the heading of that minute, and the White Book section, is:
Law 70E: Unstated line of play in claim [WBFLC]
It is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see

In any case, that is an EBU guideline applicable to a very small percentage of world bridge players.

lamford, on 2018-April-19, 08:06, said:

Here there was a stated line of play, a heart to the ten on the second round of the suit, so the TD cannot apply that minute. By implication, with a stated line of play, declarer does not take into account what he would see, but follows the stated line willy-nilly. For what it is worth, the 19% of people who voted to allow the claim in the Bridgewinners thread you linked are also wrong for the same reason.

I think it was timo who linked and created the BW thread, although I can't find his post any more.
The percentage who voted that the TD was right to allow the claim was 75% - not that this means they were right, or even representative of the mass of bridge players.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-April-19, 14:24, said:

The percentage who voted that the TD was right to allow the claim was 75% - not that this means they were right, or even representative of the mass of bridge players.

nor whether this "mass of bridge players" were right or wrong.
(The application of laws is not a democratic process among affected players)

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-April-19, 14:24, said:

The percentage who voted that the TD was right to allow the claim was 75% - not that this means they were right, or even representative of the mass of bridge players.

There were two similar threads, both oddly involving clubs not breaking; the one posted here (and on bridgewinners) by Timo:

http://www.bridgebas...allenged-claim/
http://bridgewinners...m-2-m8wxg62i68/

Here on a club lead, declarer needed to play low from dummy. 75% voted to allow this claim, as did I, as I think that to play the queen was worse than careless.

The other:

http://bridgewinners...ing-on-a-claim/

was the other post. This time, 81% agreed with the TD that the stated line "run the clubs" had to be followed, despite the WBFLC minute suggesting that declarer is allowed to notice that they don't break. I don't agree with barmar that the minute applies to the unstated part of the claim. In this example, we had a stated line of play, "run the clubs", and that is interpreted as "play the clubs from the top until they are exhausted even if they do not break". After that, declarer is assumed to follow the least favourable normal line.

In this post, the stated part of the claim was to return to hand with a top spade and play a heart to the ten, specifically on the second round of trumps. You can argue, if you wish, that declarer misspoke and meant to say "to play a heart and cover West's card". But that is amending the stated line of play. The unstated line of play is what to do after you have played a heart to the ten on the second round of trumps, with West having played low. That again would be the least favourable normal line, which could be interpreted as drawing the last trump (if one is still at large and the ten has won). It could be interpreted as not drawing the remaining trump, in line with 70C. On this occasion, declarer gets the diamond away and West ruffs, so the contract still makes. If West had a doubleton club, I think it would be very clear to award 6H-1. In this example, not so clear, which is why I have advised SB to appeal.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-April-19, 14:24, said:

In any case, that is an EBU guideline applicable to a very small percentage of world bridge players.

But the EBU guideline is based on a WBFLC minute, which applies to everyone.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-April-20, 00:56, said:

nor whether this "mass of bridge players" were right or wrong.
(The application of laws is not a democratic process among affected players)

No, but it is interesting to see how affected players expect the laws to be applied, whether or not they know the laws.
My point about the mass was that the elite of bridgewinners is probably not representative of the overall population of bridge players. I doubt that the vote would reach 75% in my club.