[lamford]

RMB1, on Mar 25 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 25 2010, 02:39 PM, said:

Do you really think it is irrational to unblock the red suit winners before running the clubs?

In the natural language meaning of the word "irrational" - yes it is irrational. A rational agent would be aware of the whole hand (including the club position) and would preserve their entries as necessary. (Of course bridge players are not rational agents.)

But this is irrelevant for two reasons, the footnote to laws 70/71 no longer uses the word "irrational" and the WBF LC secretary tells us that "irrational" in the 1997 laws did not mean the natural language meaning of the word.

70E1 still includes irrational at the end for an unstated line of play. You are saying therefore that the rationality test only applies if the line's success or failure depends on the opponent having a particular card! It looks to me as though that was an irrational missed in the editing stage.

[jdonn]

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Seems fair to me. Why don't we poor sugar in his gas tank afterwards to really rub it in?

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 25 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Seems fair to me. Why don't we poor sugar in his gas tank afterwards to really rub it in?

Because that would be stupid, childish, and a violation of state law.

[jdonn]

Ok let's try that last one again since the lawyers are in the house taking everything literally.

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Does that seem fair? If so, why?

[blackshoe]

Let's see what happens when we follow the laws...

Law 68A tells us that declarer has claimed.
Law 68C tells us that declarer should have included "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played". He didn't do that, so we have an infraction of law.
The Introduction to the laws tells us that this infraction jeopardizes declarer's rights. What rights? His rights under the law.
Law 68D tells us that if a player objects to the claim, the director should be called, and he should apply Law 70.
Law 70A says "the director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". Note that this is a right which declarer has jeopardized by failing to follow Law 68C.
Law 70B2 says "next, the director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim". So, let's see. Have we heard any objections from the opponents? No? Okay, no problem. 13 tricks to declarer.

Next case!

[jdonn]

Ah, the director was called about a claim by players who didn't object to the claim. Now I feel better.

[blackshoe]

Where in this thread did anyone say the director was called? Certainly it wasn't in the original post.

If the director was called, then he wants to hear the objection. So, anyone want to take the part of the defending side here, and state an objection?

[RMB1]

lamford, on Mar 25 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

70E1 still includes irrational at the end for an unstated line of play. You are saying therefore that the rationality test only applies if the line's success or failure depends on the opponent having a particular card! It looks to me as though that was an irrational missed in the editing stage.

I do not think that Law 70E1 is relevant to this ruling so I do not think that "irrational" is the right test in this case.

We can use "irrational" as a label for plays that are not normal (where normal includes careless or inferior). But since the law makers deliberately removed the word from the footnote I think this is bad usage. All I can suggest is "worse than careless/inferior".

I am also trying to point out that "irrational" is not a useful term. Many plays are clearly simultaneously careless, inferior and irrational. Carelessness can be a reflection of failure to give sufficient thought to the correct line of play: it is careless and inferior to not realise a small card has unexpectedly become good but it is irrational not to cash it.

It is also both careless/inferior and irrational to play the A from A10xxx v KQ9x or from AK9xx v Qxxx.

I suspect the failure to remove "irrational" from Law 70E1 could be an oversight.

(I also suspect, as I have said elsewhere, that the right concept is "bounded rationality")

[vigfus]

Law 70.D.1. Clears it.
If declarer is a beginner, I would give him 14 tricks, just to punish the Opp's for trying to get easy score against the beginners. (Behaviour like this, makes the beginners stop entering the tournaments, when they get treatment like this.)
If declarer is not beginner, I would give him 13 tricks, (footnote 22)

[campboy]

Hmm. I think the people who are trying to give 12 tricks are taking declarer's statement too literally.

Declarer indicated that he knows he has more top tricks than he needs, so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. Now that is irrational by anyone's definition.

[lamford]

campboy, on Mar 25 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

<snip> so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. <snip>

Have you been drinking?

Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, and:

Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick.

So, there are only 13 tricks.

[lamford]

vigfus, on Mar 25 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

Law 70.D.1. Clears it.
If declarer is a beginner, I would give him 14 tricks, just to punish the Opp's for trying to get easy score against the beginners. (Behaviour like this, makes the beginners stop entering the tournaments, when they get treatment like this.)
If declarer is not beginner, I would give him 13 tricks, (footnote 22)

I disagree with the method of flagrantly ignoring the Laws to try to make bridge more friendly for beginners. The opponents have done nothing wrong, and I disagree with punishing them by giving them what is clearly a (very) artificial adjusted score. If I entered an event as a beginner, and were patronised in this way, that would make me stop entering tournaments, not a correct ruling against me.

[campboy]

Quote

So, there are only 13 tricks.

That is the point. Declarer's statement clearly indicates that he knows he has more top tricks than he can take. So he knows he doesn't need to unblock both red suits.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on Mar 25 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

Declarer's statement clearly indicates that he knows he has more top tricks than he can take. So he knows he doesn't need to unblock both red suits.

Does he? Really?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on Mar 25 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

Law 70B2 says "next, the director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim". So, let's see. Have we heard any objections from the opponents? No? Okay, no problem. 13 tricks to declarer.

I think it is implicit from the fact that the opponents have asked for an adjudication of the claim that they object to declarer being awarded the number of tricks he claims, which I take to be 13 tricks (once jocularities are translated). I think that is a sufficient objection for the director to proceed to adjudicate it in the manner the laws prescribe.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on Mar 26 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

Declarer indicated that he knows he has more top tricks than he needs, so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. Now that is irrational by anyone's definition.

A simple way to play this hand - if you don't realise the clubs are blocked - is "cash all the winners in dummy, retaining 3 aces in hand". Unfortunately if you start with the red winners in dummy, which is what the opening lead has pushed your attention towards, it goes wrong.

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

[StevenG]

iviehoff, on Mar 26 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

I overlooked nothing. I said that there is no blockage - perhaps that was a clumsy way of putting things, but whereas the clubs taken in isolation are blocked, there is no shortage of entries to unblock them. There is an easy route to 13 top tricks by cashing the top tricks in the right order, no top tricks have to be sacrificed to create entries (and we could afford to lose one, in any case), therefore the claim is not flawed.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on Mar 26 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

I think it is implicit from the fact that the opponents have asked for an adjudication of the claim that they object to declarer being awarded the number of tricks he claims, which I take to be 13 tricks (once jocularities are translated). I think that is a sufficient objection for the director to proceed to adjudicate it in the manner the laws prescribe.

Go back and read the OP again. Where does it say the opponents asked for a judgment?

You are hypothesizing that the opponents object to the claim on the basis that "he doesn't have 13 tricks"? Okay, fine. Explain to me why not.

It's not up to the TD to do the opponents' work for them, or to guess what they mean.

Note: I'm not saying how I would rule with an explanation of their objection, I'm simply emphasizing the process to which you referred ("in the manner the laws prescribe").

[greenender]

I haven't changed my view that declarer should get his 13 tricks. Although I hadn't thought of it in that way, campboy's analysis makes a lot of sense.

However, I don't think anyone should be criticised for asking for a ruling. Whilst I personally wouldn't, that is a matter of my own philosophy of how to play the game. I would raise an eyebrow if a player of reasonable standard or better, knowing me to be of a similar standard, were to do so against me, but perhaps I shouldn't be: if I had failed to mention the club blockage, that would be evidence that I hadn't noticed it.

My favourite claim statement, incidentally, is the one favoured by a certain well-known member of the YC: "not doing anything ****ish".

[jdonn]

iviehoff, on Mar 26 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

This is one of the more disingenuous misinterpretations of a post I've seen in some time.