Disputed claim
The contract is 5C by N. This is the position after trick 5:
W's hand is immaterial, and defenders have no trumps.
Declarer is in Dummy, and claims 7 tricks, stating "I claim all remaining tricks apart from a diamond" (or something similar).
So far so good. Declarer cannot fail to make 7 tricks, irrespective of the position of any cards: HA, HK and 5 cross ruffs (2 diamonds in hand, a spade and two hearts on table).
But...
The defence contest the claim, and when director is called, declarer volunteers "I would return to hand with a heart and run 10d through East expecting the Ace to be held there and thereby set up a diamond winner in N for a heart or spade loser discard."
Since the line of play was not stated at the time, director does not have to follow it if "there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." (Law 70D1).
Here's the bit that interests me. Declarer is a good player, but appears from his response to the director's questioning not to have realised that a simple cross ruff would net him the 7 tricks. Should we therefore disallow not only the leading up to DK, but also the cross ruff - instead carelessly leading trumps?
Comments
It would be cruel to insist on KC JC TC KH Heart Finesse - and East takes a Heart, 2 Spades and a Diamond. But that seems to be a 'normal includes careless/ inferior' line. If the finesse worked he would have 7 tricks as per his statement.
We believe he knows that all the trumps have been drawn? Well we would give him seven tricks with no statement, and the statement he has later volunteered also leads to seven tricks, so I don't see how we could go other than give him seven tricks.
What Gordon said. I think it's more interesting if East doesn't have the ace of diamonds...
Claiming is a good idea because in theory it saves time (although there are certain people against whom I will not claim as I can be tolerably certain that it won't save time). But I do wonder about people who claim with no statement. Of course experts do it against experts and don't expect objections, but here it's simple enough to say "concede one diamond and ruff the other two" (or indeed to make the statement that was made later, but at the time of the claim).
But I wonder more about defenders who object to a perfectly obvious claim like this one, even with no statement apart from "conceding a diamond".
There is a technical question I was going to ask separately, but will use this opportunity to do so.
Law 70 B1 - 'The director requires claimer to REPEAT the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim'.
If the claimer did not make a clarification statement as required under law 68C when he made the claim then there is nothing to repeat, is there?
Is the director in order in asking for such a statement after the opponents have objected to the claim? Because the fact that the opponents have objected to the claim may alert the declarer to the fact that something may be amiss and point him towards a statement that he may not have thought of earlier, e.g. an outstanding trump.
Couldn't declarer have thought that the hearts were good???
Very unlikely, given the wording of the claim. I think declarer knew what was going on and was claiming on the cross ruff line until the claim was disputed and then he got flustered and tried to recover by elaborating to cover an eventuality that he thought he might have overlooked. A lot of suppositions there, but we wouldn't give a player the benefit of a late statement, so I don't think we should punish him for it either.
Very true, and the more I think about it the more I think this is the crux of the matter.
See the famous Hallberg Double Squeeze Claim....
Never heard of it. A quick google and... wow that's interesting.
The page I found (on bridgewinners.com) had some valuable insights into the finer points of 68D, several of which were not immediately apparent (to me, anyway).
Make sure you don't miss David Burn's poem.
Correct, although the requirement to adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides includes the need to ensure that the claimer is allowed to make his clarification statement unmolested. We have all come across opponents who jump in and interrupt.
No, partly because of Law 70E1. An unstated line of play may be in point because there was no clarification statement, or because there was one but the line concerned wasn't mentioned.
The requirement to do equity often boils down to the distinction between a bad claim, where the claimer does not obviously have the tricks claimed, and should be ruled against; and a bad statement of an otherwise perfectly good claim, where it would be inequitable to rule against a player for expressing himself poorly if we judge that he was aware of the position and did have the tricks claimed.
In the former case, the objection is all too likely to wake the claimer up to some aspect of the position which he might have overlooked.
Responding to your last sentence, if the objection wakes the claimer up to some aspect of the position which he might have overlooked, one could argue that if he had not claimed but played on, he might have mis-played for the same reason. Therefore, is it equitable to allow him to make a statement after the objection, since he did not make one when he should have. What would have been the intent of the lawmakers when they introduced the words 'at once' in 68C. And used the word 'repeat' in 70B1. As if that were not enough, Law 70D1 refers to the 'original' clarification statement. But the law is silent on the treatment in the absence of an 'original' clarification statement.
All too often a declarer shows his remaining cards and says 'all mine'. If the opponents object and the director is called, is it proper for him to ask the declarer for his line of play, bearing in mind what I have said in the para above? Would the director not be going against the letter of the law if he allowed the declarer to state the line of play after the objection? This is not a matter of a bad claim vs a valid claim badly stated, but a claim not stated at all in the first place.
In your final paragraph, Vlad, we do have a statement of claim. It is "All mine". We ask the declarer to repeat whatever statement he made and we will hear that he said "All mine". That is all we ask the declarer.
If a claimer simply puts his cards on the table, saying nothing, we need to know how many tricks he is claiming and that alone becomes the statement of claim.
A statement of claim does not have to include a line of play. Law 68C starts by saying "A claim should be accompanied ..." and not " ... must be ... ".
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The director's objective is to judge the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides. If it is obvious what would have happened if the hand had been played out, i.e. if all normal lines lead to the same number of tricks, there is no problem - that is the number of tricks awarded.
But there may be doubt. Weighted scores are not an option, the director must determine a single result. Doubtful points are to go against the claimer.
If a player claims saying "the rest are mine" without elaboration, then he gets the rest if it is obvious that he would get the rest, i.e. if he has the rest on all normal lines. But if there is doubt, he loses out if there are normal lines available that would lead to fewer tricks. He is not entitled to the benefit of the possibility that he would have got it right in the absence of a claim. If there was a line or lines to make the rest of the tricks he could have avoided that doubt by specifying one of those lines in a clarification statement.
If a player says "the rest are mine" without elaboration, it is not a "claim not stated in the first place" it is a claim (per the definition in Law 68A) but without the clarification statement mandated by Law 68C. Law 70D1 follows: the director shall not accept an unstated successful line if there is a less successful normal line. If the player hasn't stated a line, the director shouldn't ask him for one.
And, as I have mentioned before, there is really no lower limit on the words 'careless or inferior'" - although I am ready to stand corrected if there is a minute to that effect. To my mind 'normal' means : without an irregularity. Although not specifically claim-related, witness the EBU decisions on what encompasses an "extremely serious error" - a wide range of situations are considered e.g. playing for someone to hold 14 cards in a suit as not to be 'an extremely serious error. Presumably to do so is therefore a 'normal' - includes careless or inferior.
"The standard for judging a ‘[extremely] serious error’ must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant." (WBF) - and my argument is that anything less than this must merely be considered 'careless or inferior."
Normal does not include losing a trick from A3 opposite K2.
I have seen a declarer lead a King and then forget they led it (or changed their minds half-way through) and called for the Ace. Isn't that 'careless'? I bet someone could also construct a hand where it is necessary to actually lose a trick given that holding.
I appreciate your point; however - the question is: what does 'normal' mean? If it just means following suit (which is what normal play is) or just not making an infraction/ irregularity e.g. not revoking, leading from the wrong hand, then your suggested play is 'normal'. Yes I appreciate this is logic chopping and no doubt will soon happen in a North London Bridge Club.
FWIW I agree that blatantly obvious ludicrous plays should not be considered when adjudicating claims (as there is no doubt that the claimer would not do it) - however there is a continual slope of ever increasing carelessness (its gradient being dependent on the class of player concerned). Where do we draw the line? The laws do not tell us.
It has been done before me. It goes something like this:
Vul: EW
♠ AQ1086
♥ K3
♦ A32
♣ 654
♠ 432
♥ QJ1098765
♦ Q
♣ Q
♠
♥ 4
♦ KJ10987
♣ KJ10987
♠ KJ975
♥ A2
♦ 654
♣ A32
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The first measure of carelessness whatever the class of player is that they have made a claim statement that has presumably broken down.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
One of the benefits of claiming (if you do it properly) is that it insures against making silly mistakes when playing out the hand (e.g. unnecessarily ending up trapped in the wrong hand). Would not a good test of careless exclude those sorts of mistakes?
I can't see this. I think the idea is to throw W in with a low heart for a ruff and a discard, but it doesn't seem to gain a trick.
Let's assume Declarer wins the lead, and after 6 tricks has cashed AKQ Spades, AK Hearts (on the same trick) A Diamonds and A Clubs. At trick 7 Declarer puts W in with a low heart, and a trick 8 W must lead back a heart.. Let's say Declarer ruffs in hand and discards a diamond from table. The position is now:
Vul: EW
♠ T8
♥ -
♦ 3
♣ 654
♠ -
♥ QJ10987
♦ -
♣ -
♠ -
♥ -
♦ KJT
♣ KJT
♠ J
♥ -
♦ 65
♣ A32
What does Declarer do next? He can't avoid losing one diamond, two clubs and the original heart.
I know it's a puzzle, but I cant see the solution. I'm sure it's something to do with those suspicious minor Qs in W's hand, but as to what...
Lets say QD lead, hoping for a ruff... win with the A
Take the A clubs...
Then, draw 3 round of trumps...
Play the A and K of hearts in the same round.... lose a H to west, so that west has to lead from:
no spades
QJ10987
no diamonds
We let that win, discarding a Club from 1 hand and a diamond from the other
They have to lead another heart, which we allow to win again, discarding the last diamond from 1 and and the last club from the other, setting up a x-ruff.
So you lose only 3 hearts; winning 1 heart, 3 spades, a diamond and a club, then x-ruffing 2 clubs and 2 diamonds for 10 tricks.
It is established by case law.
Or (at least, according to David Burn, on bridgewinners) No one here knows.
We do have some notes online in the L&E Publications section of the website that talk a bit about what is "normal".
It does seem that it was easier to work out what was normal when the words "but not irrational" were still there. Normally, when there is a change of wording like that, one assumes that a change of meaning was intended, but removing a clarifying term without putting anything in its place isn't enormously helpful.
If weejonnie's assumption that the line is drawn in the same place as the line for implementing Law 12C1(e), then it would have been helpful if the Laws had said so. But one can't always expect that. That doesn't mean that he's wrong (or that he's necessarily right ;) ).
There is another very helpful and succinct statement from Martin Henneberger, quoting from the official ACBL guidance, on the same Bridgewinners thread (its not a long thread so I won't link it separately):
In the case of a poor claim, the player has erred. In the case of a poorly stated claim, the player has solved the bridge problem, but stated it poorly.
Ingenious - and nothing to do with the minor Queens! Thanks, Martin.
Your last sentence, ‘If the player hasn’t stated a line, the director shouldn’t ask him for one.’ is the answer I was seeking all along in confirmation of my interpretation of the law.
If anybody disagrees then that is the point to be debated.
I agree with this. I always make a point of asking "what did you say at the moment when you made the claim?"