[Pict]

I am not trying to get declarer 13 tricks on this hand.

But my problem with the bridge version of quantum mechanics (whoever has the cat, gets to keep it) is where do you draw the line.

AKQT - xxx

AKJxx - xxxx

AKT9 - xxxx

Given some constraints on entries there are very few interesting setups where I could not cause declarer to fail on the basis of an alternative line or lines at points in the play - especially if no plan is allowed.

So what's the point of the reference to equity in the Law?

[Codo]

I do not understand the supporters for all the tricks.

Even if East holds onto the spades.

The two card ending is:

♠QT 7
♦- 9

Even if declarer counted better then he claimed, there are 4 cards out- lets say 2 spades and two diamonds.
Why shall he play for the drop? This line is not so much better, that finessing is IWOG.

So if he had played it, he may had failed. How can you give him an advantage for his lazy claim?

Okay, if you understand "I've got them all" as "I play everything from the top", then you have a point. But my translater found quite different translations for these two sentences, so I would be quite surprised if these two sentences are really equal.

So, I am quite surprised that this is not a 11 tricks wtp hand.

[jdonn]

"No one" would plan to be finessing the spade at trick one.
But even if somehow somebody was, they wouldn't claim.
But even if somehow somebody did, they would state that in their claim statement.

In short there is no way declarer's intention at the time of the claim was to finesse the spade. I see absolutely no fairness in forcing declarer to do something he was clearly not intending to do. I at least see the point of those who want to make him discard a spade on the clubs (though it seems too harsh to me) but I very strongly disagree with forcing a spade finesse on him.

And I don't believe I'm failing to follow the law since the above 3 points tell me that the drop is embraced ("stated" is not necessary) in the claim statement.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

I see absolutely no fairness in forcing declarer to do something he was clearly not intending to do.

<disappointed>Aw...(puts thumbscrews away).
<brightens, brings thumbscrews back out>Wait! Can we force him to do something else?

We're not "forcing" declarer to do (or not do) something. We're adjudicating a contested claim. Law 70A says

Quote

in ruling on a contested claim or concession, the director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.

The doubtful point here is whether declarer would have, if she played it out, played for the drop or taken the finesse, or perhaps pitched the fourth spade on a club. In fact, since she didn't say which she would do, and since any of these plays is "normal" within the meaning of the law, then she might have done any of them. Since there is more than one way she might have lost a trick, and only one way she would not have lost it, the TD, by the rest of Law 70, is told to rule that she loses the trick. I suppose one might say "you lost it because you are deemed to have finessed", but it would be more accurate to say that "you lost it because you failed to follow Law 68C and clearly state your intended line of play".

[greenender]

I strongly prefer Robin and Wayne's view here. IMO the misapprehension as to the number of tricks could have come from anywhere, such as the absent sixth ♣ already mentioned.

The most favourable play (for declarer) that should be considered by the TD is to assume the cashing of the ♠AK and the other non-♠ winners, leading to a 2-card ending where the options are reduced to the ♠ guess. L 70 E 1 is now squarely engaged and (the ♠J not having dropped), declarer only gets 13 tricks when Jxx is onside. So I'm for down 2.

I accept that it boils down to whether playing ♠s from the top was embraced in the original statement. I don't buy it.

It would be nice if the law permitted a weighted score in these circumstances, but of course the adjudication of a claim isn't the award of an adjusted score, so it currently doesn't.

[greenender]

I hadn't seen Ed's post when I posted mine, but I entirely agree.

[pran]

I see a major question that must be considered first of all:

Can the claimer have miscounted her clubs and believed she had six?

If yes, then she should be given her twelve top tricks for down one.

If not, then she obviously has counted four spade tricks, overlooking that she misses the Queen. In that case there is no way she will ever discard the fourth spade from dummy, and in the course of play she will most likely end up in dummy being forced to play her remaining spades from top, luckily dropping the Queen.

From the given facts I feel pretty sure that the player counted four tricks in spades (and only five in clubs) and that the player never even remotely considered the possibility that she eventually might have to choose between a finesse and a drop.

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

[Codo]

pran, on Mar 23 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

[bluejak]

pran, on Mar 23 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

I see a major question that must be considered first of all:

Can the claimer have miscounted her clubs and believed she had six?

If yes, then she should be given her twelve top tricks for down one.

If not, then she obviously has counted four spade tricks, overlooking that she misses the Queen. In that case there is no way she will ever discard the fourth spade from dummy, and in the course of play she will most likely end up in dummy being forced to play her remaining spades from top, luckily dropping the Queen.

From the given facts I feel pretty sure that the player counted four tricks in spades (and only five in clubs) and that the player never even remotely considered the possibility that she eventually might have to choose between a finesse and a drop.

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

These are not the only possibilities, and I find ruling on such an assumption strange. How about adding up her top tricks wrong, for example? It is not "obvious" that she has counted four spade tricks at all.

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks. Odds do not come into it.

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

We do not force people to do anything: we rule.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 23 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

We're not "forcing" declarer to do (or not do) something. We're adjudicating a contested claim.

You're doing both. Strictly speaking you're accomplishing what you said by doing what I said. Well ok you're not yanking a card out of his hand but you're causing the exact same result.

Quote

The doubtful point here is whether declarer would have, if she played it out, played for the drop or taken the finesse, or perhaps pitched the fourth spade on a club. In fact, since she didn't say which she would do, and since any of these plays is "normal" within the meaning of the law, then she might have done any of them.

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

[Trinidad]

pran, on Mar 21 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 21 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

campboy, on Mar 21 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

If you think you have 13 tricks without the 4th spade, you might throw it on the last club. Therefore 12 tricks looks right to me.

Fully agree. If you think you have 13 tricks it is not irrational at all to discard the 13th spade on the clubs.

Rik

If he plays the clubs first (which is not irrational) then I assume he will discard the small Diamond rather than the fourth spade in at least 99 out of 100 times.

Pure psychology.

That may be true, but "pure psychology" is not the criterion. The criterion is whether it is "irrational" or not. Discarding the spade is not irrational when you think you have 13 on top.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Suppose spades turned out to be 5-1 onside. Presumably those arguing that average players never finesse against jacks or that declarer is bound to play his tricks from the top would no longer argue this way? But equally, the possibility that declarer would discard a spade on a club before playing the suit is the same as before.

I must admit that when I read the OP I thought this was a fairly simple case where 12 tricks seemed right - if fact I wouldn't expect many declarers even to want to be awarded 13 tricks. But having read the replies it seems there are people arguing strongly for 11, 12 and 13 tricks. Maybe there is more than I thought in Nigel's argument that there has to be a more prescriptive way of settling disputed claims when judgments can differ so much....

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Mar 23 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks.  Odds do not come into it.

Fine: if you judge that (for this (class of) player) finessing SJ is not normal then you are back to deciding the normality of discarding a small spade on the clubs.

[Codo]

bluejak, on Mar 24 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks. Odds do not come into it.

The players who do not finess against a jack never bid grand slam if they have less then 15 tricks and even than....

The player who do not finesse do not claim at the first trick.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument despite the fact that I accept your superior knowledge in the laws.

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

We do not force people to do anything: we rule.

I do not understand your semantic. You do not enforce the rules? You do not force players to choose the line of play they have to choose according to the law?

[blackshoe]

To force implies to use coercion, or threat, or physical strength. No, we (TD's) don't do that.

jdonn said:

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

No, you're the one who is certain. I'm not. You are calling things "certain" which are in my opinion by no means certain. In doing so, you are making the "fallacious leap" you accuse me of making. Sorry, Josh, but no.

OTOH, one TD and very good player to whom I showed this hand today opined that it would be irrational not to pitch the dummy's losing diamond on the fifth club. I'm not so sure, but if so it would lead to 13 tricks. I think it would be careless, not irrational, though. Particularly if declarer thinks she has another club on which to pitch. Yes, I know we have no evidence that she thinks that.

If there is no doubt in the TD's mind that declarer would play off his top tricks in such a way as to find that the ♠J drops while still leaving him access to the ten, then the TD will (and should) rule that the board be scored as 7NT making. If there is doubt in the TD's mind, he should give the benefit of that doubt to the other side, and rule that the board be scored as 7NT down 1 (or possibly down 2, though I think that's a bit much). I don't know about anyone else, but the statement declarer made when she claimed leaves doubt in my mind.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 23 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

To force implies to use coercion, or threat, or physical strength. No, we (TD's) don't do that.

jdonn said:

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

No, you're the one who is certain. I'm not. You are calling things "certain" which are in my opinion by no means certain. In doing so, you are making the "fallacious leap" you accuse me of making. Sorry, Josh, but no.

Sigh. The "you" that you are refering to ("Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain because...") is clearly definition 2, not definition 1. I made no accusation of what you blackshoe are certain of, just implied that a person should be certain.

Anyway you can think my opinion is wrong just like I can think yours is wrong. But you used fallacious logic, not me. You clearly said:
IF declarer didn't state a line of play AND some line of play is normal
THEN declarer might have taken that line of play.
That is not only wrong (by which I mean not necessarily true) but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the (following) law, for the following reason.

Quote

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful.

Focus on the word "embraced". Notice that it has a different meaning from "stated" which as far as I can tell is how you interpret the law (you even use that word exactly in your reasoning).

Now I will reiterate my 3 reasons stated earlier. Tell me if you disagree with any of these statements.

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

If I can just possibly convince you that any (not all, but any) of those statements are true then you are saying to declarer that he might have done something which you are fully aware he had no intention at all to do. Is that supposed to be just? Or are you saying Joe Blow from Wasilla Alaska sees dummy and says "Ok let's see, obviously I finesse the jack of spades for trick 13, I guess I'll just claim and to make things more interesting I won't mention that part." I would like to meet this man!

[nige1]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

Alternatively ...

• Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.
  
• If so, they probably wouldn't claim without playing a card.
  
• If so, they probably wouldn't fail to mention that intention in their claim.

However, JDonn believes that this was what was in declarer's mind. Luckily for declarer, some directors agree with JDonn

[jdonn]

nige1, on Mar 23 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.

STRONGLY disagree!

Quote

If so, they probably wouldn't claim without playing a card.

They probably wouldn't but they might, unlike in the other case.

Quote

If so, they probably wouldn't fail to mention that intention in their claim.

Actually if they did indeed claim and didn't state a line, it's overwhelmingly likely that the claim was on the basis of what declarer perceived as top tricks. So you are quite backwards on this point.

It is indeed fortunate for declarer that some directors agree with me. Otherwise he would receive a truly unfair result.

[nige1]

nige1, on Mar 23 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

STRONGLY disagree!

A matter of opinion. IMO an expert might plan to count the hand. Most ordinary players would plan to cash ♠AK. They would plan to finesse against favourable 5-1 or 6-0 splits

Of course, a player may think he has 13 top tricks, but, IMO, few players would immediately count ♠ 10 as one of them.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

You clearly said:
IF declarer didn't state a line of play AND some line of play is normal
THEN declarer might have taken that line of play.

Did I? Or did I say that the law says that if declarer didn't state a line of play, and some line of play is normal, then if that line of play is less successful than some other (also normal, presumably) line of play, then the TD rules that the board be scored according to the less successful result? That, at least, is what I thought I said (I'm not going to go back and hunt down my exact words).

Quote

That is not only wrong (by which I mean not necessarily true) but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the (following) law, for the following reason.

Quote

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful.

Focus on the word "embraced". Notice that it has a different meaning from "stated" which as far as I can tell is how you interpret the law (you even use that word exactly in your reasoning).

The original "clarification statement" was "I have them all". As far as I can see, that doesn't embrace any particular line of play, except perhaps "play off top tricks, in no particular order".

Quote

Now I will reiterate my 3 reasons stated earlier. Tell me if you disagree with any of these statements.

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.
- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

I think some people might very well do that first thing - although I would expect most of them to then look for a better plan. Then, of course, there are those for whom the question is "plan? what's that?"

#2: Why not? If they think taking the finesse is the only way to make it, they don't need to play a card.
#3: People fail to mention things in claims all the time. I see no reason to believe your hypothetical player wouldn't do the same.