[lamford]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

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.

"There is no blockage" seems clear enough to me.

[bluejak]

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

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?

Fair, yes. Why, because I don't believe you?

Quite good players have blocked suits against me. I have blocked suits. The one thing you can be certain of is that when he put his hand down at trick one he had not noticed the blockage otherwise he would have mentioned it.

If a medium player had played this out do I believe he would have made 13 tricks 100% of the time? No. Players with obvious tricks play more carelessly: if you gave this to a 100 declarers in a game where claims were barred I bet at least two would not make 13 tricks.

Isn't unblocking natural for fair players? Certainly: that is why they will immediately play off the two KQs.

Cyberyeti, on Mar 25 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

Everybody on the planet cashes AC at trick 2 (or possibly 3 after unblocking the other heart), it is irrational to do anything else, at that point the route to 13 tricks becomes obvious.

Absolutely not: a lot of people start to unblock the red suits.

Actually, it is the poorer players who automatically play clubs first: better players think about unblocking the red suits.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Mar 26 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

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.

"There is no blockage" seems clear enough to me.

That may be because both the definition of "disingeuous" and the concept of "context" elude you. Or maybe it's just because you chose to ignore that poster's later post explaining his comment.

bluejak, on Mar 26 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

Quite good players have blocked suits against me.  I have blocked suits.  The one thing you can be certain of is that when he put his hand down at trick one he had not noticed the blockage otherwise he would have mentioned it.

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

Besides, your argument is a clear oversimplification. You could use it to rule that a trick 1 claim without a clear line gets 12 tricks in notrump on the following hand:

---

After all you and I and all good players have blocked suits before!

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Mar 25 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

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

It does not need to be, Ed. It is implicit. If you put an obvious ruling case into a rulings forum, you really do not need to say "A ruling was asked for".

blackshoe, on Mar 25 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

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?

We know that declarer has not noticed the club blockage: he would definitely have mentioned it. Unblocking the KQs is a normal albeit careless play. So he will not make 13 tricks because he will not have the entries once he realises the problem in clubs.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

Not a chance!

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

Besides, your argument is a clear oversimplification. You could use it to rule that a trick 1 claim without a clear line gets 12 tricks in notrump on the following hand:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ xxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xxx ♣ Ax ♠ AK ♥ AKQJ ♦ AKQJ ♣ KQx

After all you and I and all good players have blocked suits before!

We use bridge judgement in making judgement rulings. Players block AKQxxx opposite T987: players do not block Ax opposite KQx. The cases bear no similarity.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Mar 26 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

Not a chance!

If only this hand were not obviously made up so we could place a wager on it and ask the declarer.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Mar 26 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Isn't unblocking natural for fair players?  Certainly: that is why they will immediately play off the two KQs.

Let us be honest, this is what springs to mind at first glance; it is after this that one notices the club blockage. I am sure that a declarer who has noticed the blockage would have either made a statement or played one top club before claiming.

Not noticing the club position until too late is not as improbable as some people here seem to think; and do not forget that this was not posed as a "problem" to declarer.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

That may be because both the definition of "disingeuous" and the concept of "context" elude you.

Indeed. When I googled disingeuous, I got a message "We are unable to search the Klingon language".

[blackshoe]

Damned Klingons. Why can't they speak English, like everybody else?

[FrancesHinden]

Of course people block suits like this. Sometimes twice at the same time.

A world champion blocked a suit as declarer against me. My partner didn't realise it was blocked (because he hasn't been watching the pips) and then let the contract through anyway. This was even done on vugraph, for extra embarrassment.

OK, the blockage was a little more subtle than the (obviously fictional) OP, but it was still single-dummy blocked.