[pran]

Trinidad, on Mar 23 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

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

I simply placed myself in the chair of the claimer and tried to visualize how she, being an average player, counted to thirteen tricks for her claim. (This is where psychology came into the picture.)

She could not possibly count more than one Diamond trick and three in hearts.

Assuming that she counted (only) five tricks in clubs she must have counted four spade tricks making the rather easy mistake of not noticing that the Jack was missing.

And I consider it vastly more probable that she counted four tricks in spades rather than six tricks in clubs (remember we are still discussing an average player) .

This in my opinion results in that the only line of play embraced in her claim statement is to cash her "thirteen aces" while taking care not to block herself from any of them.

During this process the Jack of spades will, probably to her surprise and luckily for her, drop under the Queen.

[pran]

nige1, on Mar 23 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

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

Certainly not, but many "average" players can easily overlook that this ten was part of a non-continuous suite where the Jack was missing.

I am much more reluctant to accept that this player may have gone through the complete auction and opening lead errouneously believeing that she had six clubs even after counting her total number of "aces".

[campboy]

By far the most likely misapprehension the player was under when claiming is that 3+3+1+5=13.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 23 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

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".

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

[nige1]

nige1, on Mar 23 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

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

pran, on Mar 23 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

Certainly not, but many "average" players can easily overlook that this ten was part of a non-continuous suite where the Jack was missing. I am much more reluctant to accept that this player may have gone through the complete auction and opening lead erroneously believing that she had six clubs even after counting her total number of "aces".

campboy, on Mar 23 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

By far the most likely misapprehension the player was under when claiming is that 3+3+1+5=13.

Campboy's surmise is as plausible as any other. When declarer discovers his mistake (assuming that he hasn't already discarded ♠T), he may now decide to finesse or to play for the drop. Is the finesse a normal (but inferior) option?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

Blocking a suit is certainly careless. Guess what? People block suits all the time.

[bluejak]

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

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.

My knowledge of the Laws, superior or otherwise, does not come into it. I have given you an opinion based on playing experience.

Codo, on Mar 23 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

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?

I have a horror of the modern method of arguing by persuasion via buzz words rather than logic. When a player leads out of turn and is told to replace the card in his hand it is just that: but if you want to make it seem very unfair you say he is forced to put it back.

Similarly here, people who do not think the finesse should be allowed, rather than just say so, are trying to persuade by using a buzz word: instead of saying "We rule he finesses ..." which does not imply anything people say "He is forced to finesse" which makes it sound terrible. Presumably such people would say he would play for the drop: should we say "He is forced to play for the drop"? It worries me because there is an argument against ruling via a finesse but it is not seen because of the sound of "forced".

I really would prefer if we could try to sort this claim out without psychological ploys based on the horror of buzz words.

[dburn]

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

Scoring: IMP

---

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades
[b] if North has the singleton king of spades
[c] if South has the singleton king of spades
[d] in no circumstances

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 23 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

Blocking a suit is certainly careless. Guess what? People block suits all the time.

Do you believe blocking spades here would be a "normal" line?

[Pict]

dburn, on Mar 23 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

Scoring: IMP

---

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades
[b] if North has the singleton king of spades
[c] if South has the singleton king of spades
[d] in no circumstances

I would be interested in the recommended ruling on this, albeit hypothetical, position.

Personally I would expect to find that declarer imagined he was playing in seven of a minor, and planned to 'draw trumps' and play A♠ and Q♠ 'ruffing'.

If that were so I would give the contract where there is a singleton King and some appropriate number off when there isn't. This seems equitable to me.

Some appear to interpret the rules in a different way, that involves looking at the cards and finding a losing line where possible.

I find this a strange reading (though it may be established as correct) because to say 'do not accept an unstated line of play etc' seems not relevant when the claimer is not attempting to add an unstated line of play. It seems to me that control passes to the TD to resolve the situation in an equitable fashion, whatever that might be in the given case.

[iviehoff]

dburn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:44 AM, said:

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

Scoring: IMP

---

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades
[b] if North has the singleton king of spades
[c] if South has the singleton king of spades
[d] in no circumstances

Let us suppose the player making this claim puts down his hand with a heart sorted into the diamonds. We now know why he thought he had 13 tricks. He will lose as many heart tricks as the opponents can cash.

Now that is not a "normal" line of play for a player looking at the hand diagram above. But it is normal for a player who thinks one of his small hearts is a diamond. So I think that is a legal ruling.

I think that puts us into the region of investigating the reason for the mistaken claim, in case we can find other good reasons why a player who claimed 13 tricks will likely in practice go down, even if the cards are as fortunate as in situation ©.

Some other reasons:

(i) He thought he was in 7 of a minor. It would be normal to "ruff" a heart in 7 of a minor. The opposition get all their heart tricks. Actually I think this is quite a likely reason for the false claim (because the other reasons are less likely), and unless I am reasonably sure it does not apply I might well rule along these lines. In this case, I will give the opps the benefit of the doubt that this was his misapprehension, and disallow the claim in all 3 cases.

(ii) He thought 5+5+1+1 = 13. I think this is very unlikely. Even the distracted and arithmetically challenged don't get that one wrong. And they don't think AKQJ10 is 6 tricks either. I'm probably going to discount this one unless there is strong evidence for it.

(iii) A range of other possible reasons for getting confused about the number of tricks in 7N: the most likely is that he counted the HA as two tricks, ie, hasn't realised it isn't there any more at the end of trick 1. Sometimes this happens because players don't turn the cards over in the completed trick before claiming, or claim before trick 1 is complete. Another possibility is that he saw two losing major suit cards in his hand and thought that the Aces covered them, so there was no loser.

So, if I've excluded the possibilty that he thinks he is in 7 of a minor, and excluded the possibility there was a heart in his diamonds, only now am I going to consider that the player is actually looking at something like the hand diagram you presented, aware he is in 7NT, and consider normal plays in that situation.

I consider (b) first, because it helps clarify my chosen ruling on (a).

(b) No. And I think this is easy and ought to be routine. Finessing is a normal line of play to 13 tricks, so by both 69D1 and 69E1 we allow the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he might finesse. The fact that declarer in practice might have had a particular confusion in his mind that (if it persisted) would have resulted in him cashing the SA and dropping the K is irrelevant - he can't rely on that line of play because (i) he didn't tell us about it and (ii) we can't (in nearly all cases) be sure that this was his confusion, or that this confusion would persist, so, resolving doubts in favour of the other side, we can reasonably say that the confusion may not persist or not be his actual confusion, in which case finessing is a normal line that fails. If the player does say that he was under a particular confusion that would result in him cashing the SA, it would require an extraordinary level of proof (extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof, as scientists say to crackpots).

(a) This is the difficult case. I say no, and I think that this follows from the reasoning in (b) above. But I expect quite a lot of people disagree. In the same way that in (b) above we allowed the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he might wake up from his confusion, or have a different confusion, that resulted in him cashing the SA, I think here we have to allow the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he is under such a confusion that he can cash the SA and that this confusion will persist. So he could indeed fail to take the spade finesse, and cash the SA early in the hand, for example because he thought he had just two major suit losers to cover, or that he could win the HA again.

© Yes. And I think very few people would disagree. If you know you are in 7NT, and you know how many minor suit cards you have, the 13th trick falls into your lap unless you do something really bizarre. By saying you know you are in 7NT and you know you have 10 minor suit winners, I have excluded those bizarre lines. You can't block the spades, you can't discard the SQ before you need it. I think this really is the case where the trick you need falls into your lap, provided of course, that we have satisfactorily excluded the (rather likely) possibility that you think you are playing in 7 of a minor.

[WellSpyder]

I would also propose to rule (a.) no (b.) no (c.) yes - for the reasons that iviehoff has spelt out much more clearly than I could have done.

[nige1]

dburn, on Mar 23 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

• if South has the guarded king of spades
  
  
  
• if North has the singleton king of spades
  
  
  
• if South has the singleton king of spades
  
  
  
• in no circumstances

---

Assuming David has given us all relevant facts, then, IMO, the director should rule d. Among normal lines, the claimer is assumed to choose the losing option, if there is one, even if it is inferior.

But is playing for the drop, here, really a normal line? I would sympathise with a director who allowed declarer to finesse successfully, arguing that playing to drop the ♠K is so inferior as to be abnormal.

In contrast, in the original post case, the drop is only slightly better than the finesse. There, it is a close decision and both lines are quite normal.

[blackshoe]

After the opening lead, you are in dummy with the ♥A. I suppose the question is whether it is normal to:

1. Play the ♠A immediately.
2. Go to hand in either minor, and then play a spade to the AQ, and either
   take the finesse or
   play the Ace
3. Go to hand, play out your ten minor suit tricks, and then play a spade towards the AQ and either finesse or don't.

For my money, 1 is insane, and 2 is damn close to the same. That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

So, in reference to per dburn's original post, how would you rule if you know that South had a singleton King (situation c)?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

After the opening lead, you are in dummy with the ♥A. I suppose the question is whether it is normal to:

1. Play the ♠A immediately.
2. Go to hand in either minor, and then play a spade to the AQ, and either
   take the finesse or
   play the Ace
3. Go to hand, play out your ten minor suit tricks, and then play a spade towards the AQ and either finesse or don't.

For my money, 1 is insane, and 2 is damn close to the same. That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

1 is only insane if the player knows he is in 7NT and knows he only has 10 minor suit tricks. If he knows all that, why did he claim 13 tricks?

[WellSpyder]

nige1, on Mar 24 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Assuming David has given us all relevant facts, then, IMO, the director should rule d. Among normal lines, the claimer is assumed to choose the losing option, if there is one, even if it is inferior.

And the losing option in case c (singleton K with south) is...?

[helene_t]

I think it's a little harsh to let declarer block a suit or discard a spade. But at some point during the play he will see that he needs a 4th spade trick. Percentage play is the drop (and also the drop will, if it fails, keep it to one downtrick even if he postpones the decision to the 2-card endplay). But he may not know this, or he may act on some perceived extra information form opps' discards or w/e.

I am inclined to adjust to -2. Not that it is particularly likely to happen absent the claim (there is the added possibility that either opp discards a spade at some point and declarer observes this), but it is not irrational to take the finesse at the 2-card endplay.

I would prefer to ask declarer to play the hand but of course the law does not allow that.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on Mar 24 2010, 10:54 AM, said:

If he knows all that, why did he claim 13 tricks?

I dunno. Guess you'll have to ask him.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on Mar 24 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 24 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

So, in reference to per dburn's original post, how would you rule if you know that South had a singleton King (situation c)?

13 tricks, because when declarer leads a spade from his hand, South will play the king.