[bluejak]

---

South leads ♦3 (3rd/5th) ♦Q ♦10 ♦2
2nd: ♠Q ♠K ♠J ♠6 (Smith, likes ♦)
3rd: ♦9 ♦5 ♦J ♦4
4th: ♥J ♥Q ♥K ♥8
5th: ♥6 ♥9 ♥10 ♥A
6th: ♠10 ♠A ♣4 ♠2

Now declarer (East) claims the rest, saying “I will throw one ♦ on ♣Q”

I do not know whether it is possible to produce a proper diagram without 13 cards in a hand so I shall have to improvise. If it is possible perhaps someone can edit this post suitably.

West:
♠ 987
♥ 7
♦ A6
♣ K

East:
♠
♥ 2
♦
♣ AQT876

A solid claim, but in reality East has kept not ♥2 but instead ♥8, so there are communication problems if North returns ♥.

West:
♠ 987
♥ 7
♦ A6
♣ K

East:
♠
♥ 8
♦
♣ AQT876

North realizes this, objects to the claim and calls the TD.

What should the TD decide in:

Case 1 (North holds ♣Jxx and two ♥-winners)
a) MP-Pairs, b) IMPs

Case 2 (♣Jx drops)
a) MP-Pairs, b) IMPs

Case 3 (South has ♣Jxx) is irrelevant.
Result always 1 down.



I have given an opinion, but would be interested to hear whether anyone else agrees with me.

I should appreciate no-one telling me I have the facts wrong.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2014-March-31, 16:10, said:

What should the TD decide in:

Case 1 (North holds ♣Jxx and two ♥-winners)
a) MP-Pairs, b) IMPs

Case 2 (♣Jx drops)
a) MP-Pairs, b) IMPs

Case 3 (South has ♣Jxx) is irrelevant.
Result always 1 down.

Case 1: Declarer gets two club tricks and the 8 of hearts. North keeps the club J and a winning heart and gets those tricks. Down 2.
Case 2: Declarer gets all the remaining tricks. I don't think anyone is going to drop the Jack doubleton and then lead a low card instead of the ten. Contract makes.

I don't think the form of scoring matters, but I'm open to arguments otherwise.

[gordontd]

Is it normal to cash out for one off when there is a decent chance of making, and when you might still only go one off even if that chance doesn't materialise? I can't really see anyone doing other than playing according to the claim statement.

[billw55]

bluejak, on 2014-March-31, 16:10, said:

Case 2 (♣Jx drops)

blackshoe, on 2014-March-31, 20:53, said:

Case 2: Declarer gets all the remaining tricks. I don't think anyone is going to drop the Jack doubleton and then lead a low card instead of the ten. Contract makes.

Interesting. My first reaction was, if someone has ♣Jx, then the other guy has ♣9xxx which is also a stopper in this situation. So I reread the OP and noted that a club was pitched, which changes things. Anyway, I assume the meaning is that if the club suit runs by playing the ace first, then the ruling is 3NT=, which I agree with.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2014-April-01, 06:36, said:

My first reaction was, if someone has ♣Jx, then the other guy has ♣9xxx which is also a stopper in this situation. So I reread the OP and noted that a club was pitched, which changes things.

I did that too, but caught myself just before I hit SEND.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2014-April-01, 01:53, said:

Is it normal to cash out for one off when there is a decent chance of making, and when you might still only go one off even if that chance doesn't materialise? I can't really see anyone doing other than playing according to the claim statement.

East's intention was obviously not to cash all the clubs from the top, otherwise they would not refer to throwing "one diamond" on the queen of clubs, but rather "both diamonds, along with the remaining hearts and spades" on all the clubs.

My first thought was that whether East might cash out for one off is a doubtful point that will be resolved against the claimer, so East gets whichever line of play is more disadvantageous to them. I don't think they have to be held to the claim statement where this would clearly involve scuppering the rest of the intended claim.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2014-March-31, 16:10, said:

I do not know whether it is possible to produce a proper diagram without 13 cards in a hand so I shall have to improvise. If it is possible perhaps someone can edit this post suitably.

After you have inserted the diagram, you will see the following text in your editor (expect that there is no space behind the first "[" and before the last "]").

[ hv=pc=n&w=sqt987haq7daq64ck&e=sjh982d52caqt8764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp1np2np3nppp]266|200[/hv ]

You can recognize the hands in this piece of code. It says "w=sqt987haq7daq64ck". This means: "West has ♠QT987♥AQ7♦AQ64♣K". It shows the East hand in a similar way.

You can edit this code and delete the cards that have been played.

The text will be (without the spaces):

[ hv=pc=n&w=s987h7da6ck&e=sh2dcaqt876&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp1np2np3nppp]266|200[/hv ]

which the forum software reads as

---

Rik

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2014-April-01, 06:53, said:

East's intention was obviously not to cash all the clubs from the top, otherwise they would not refer to throwing "one diamond" on the queen of clubs, but rather "both diamonds, along with the remaining hearts and spades" on all the clubs.

My first thought was that whether East might cash out for one off is a doubtful point that will be resolved against the claimer, so East gets whichever line of play is more disadvantageous to them. I don't think they have to be held to the claim statement where this would clearly involve scuppering the rest of the intended claim.

East's intention was clearly to cash the two top clubs at the earliest opportunity and then cross to the winners in the West hand (or cash all the winners in the West hand and then cross to the two club winners with East), but obviously he will discover that's not possible when he's put in hand with the heart.

At that moment he can choose to cash out for one off by playing a small club or try to make it by playing the CA, which incidentally is consistent with the line in his claim statement, although I don't think that matters much. I wouldn't think it a normal line to cash out for one off, but I'd be prepared to listen to arguments that it is.

[billw55]

gordontd, on 2014-April-01, 07:23, said:

East's intention was clearly to cash the two top clubs at the earliest opportunity and then cross to the winners in the West hand (or cash all the winners in the West hand and then cross to the two club winners with East), but obviously he will discover that's not possible when he's put in hand with the heart.

At that moment he can choose to cash out for one off by playing a small club or try to make it by playing the CA, which incidentally is consistent with the line in his claim statement, although I don't think that matters much. I wouldn't think it a normal line to cash out for one off, but I'd be prepared to listen to arguments that it is.

If matchpoints. Sometimes, playing for down one instead of down two or more is best, or might be considered even when not best. I suppose this is why OP asked about forms of scoring.

[cherdano]

bluejak, on 2014-March-31, 16:10, said:

A solid claim, but in reality East has kept not ♥2 but instead ♥8, so there are communication problems if North returns ♥.

There is also a communication problem in case North returns a club, as we should assume that declarer will go up with the ace.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2014-April-01, 07:36, said:

If matchpoints. Sometimes, playing for down one instead of down two or more is best, or might be considered even when not best. I suppose this is why OP asked about forms of scoring.

Oh yes, that's clear, but I think I need to hear an argument why cashing out is a normal line in this instance. It might be argued that most others will be going off in 3NT, but actually I suspect many of them will be in a making part-score and playing for one-off is playing for a near-zero.

[billw55]

gordontd, on 2014-April-01, 07:57, said:

Oh yes, that's clear, but I think I need to hear an argument why cashing out is a normal line in this instance. It might be argued that most others will be going off in 3NT, but actually I suspect many of them will be in a making part-score and playing for one-off is playing for a near-zero.

Perhaps. Is analyzing the probable field contract a domain where "resolving doubtful points" applies? i.e. whether declarer might judge 3NT to be a normal contract?

[blackshoe]

9xx doesn't help defenders, since East has AQT.

He made a claim statement. Follow the statement. Okay, he intended to cash AQ and then play a heart to West, which he can't do because the suit is blocked. So he plays AQ, plays his heart, oops, still in the East hand. Will he throw in the towel, or realize his clubs are good, or just play a hopeful ten? I would have to be there to evaluate his state of mind. Absent that, or evidence that he indicated via some comment that he would give up, I'd give him the tricks. It isn't the TD's job to screw a claimer any way he can.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2014-April-01, 07:23, said:

East's intention was clearly to cash the two top clubs at the earliest opportunity and then cross to the winners in the West hand (or cash all the winners in the West hand and then cross to the two club winners with East), but obviously he will discover that's not possible when he's put in hand with the heart.

Why at the earliest opportunity? How does he envisage he's going to reach the winners in dummy? This could only be consistent with the claim statement if he thinks his ♥8 is smaller than dummy's ♥7. I can understand a player overlooking a blockage in a suit, but not something as simple as having no entries.

East surely intended to win the spade, diamond or club in dummy, cash winners and return to hand with a heart and discard the diamond loser on a top club at the last trick.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2014-April-02, 06:58, said:

Why at the earliest opportunity? How does he envisage he's going to reach the winners in dummy? This could only be consistent with the claim statement if he thinks his ♥8 is smaller than dummy's ♥7.

That was the basis of the original post.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2014-April-02, 08:29, said:

That was the basis of the original post.

If you mean that East thought at the time of the claim that he had played ♥8 and retained ♥2 in his hand, and was claiming on that basis, then that wasn't clear to me from the original post. I thought he had just missed the implications of a heart return, and David was just pointing out in the preamble that he could easily have avoided this by unblocking ♥8.

Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.

[PhilKing]

gordontd, on 2014-April-02, 08:29, said:

That was the basis of the original post.

Unless he had the original facts wrong.

[blackshoe]

I suppose the question is whether the claim is valid, can be played IAW the line of play statement, whatever North leads, or, barring that, there is no "normal" line of play that would fail. One possibility: North leads a club, and declarer plays the Ace, crashing the King and locking himself in his hand. If the ♣J does not fall on the AQ, then the defenders will get at least one more trick. Would it not be "normal" to play the ♣A? Alternatively, declarer wins the ♣K in dummy, takes his ♦A, heart to his hand, and now he has the same problem, and wouldn't if he takes his good spades first - but might he fail to do that?

I suppose similar arguments can be made on a spade or diamond lead. On a heart lead, of course, he's stuck in his hand and will play clubs from the top.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-01, 06:58, said:

After you have inserted the diagram, you will see the following text in your editor (expect that there is no space behind the first "[" and before the last "]").

[ hv=pc=n&w=sqt987haq7daq64ck&e=sjh982d52caqt8764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp1np2np3nppp]266|200[/hv ]

You can recognize the hands in this piece of code. It says "w=sqt987haq7daq64ck". This means: "West has ♠QT987♥AQ7♦AQ64♣K". It shows the East hand in a similar way.

You can edit this code and delete the cards that have been played.

The text will be (without the spaces):

[ hv=pc=n&w=s987h7da6ck&e=sh2dcaqt876&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp1np2np3nppp]266|200[/hv ]

which the forum software reads as

---

Rik

Thanks: I shall remember that.

[bluejak]

PhilKing, on 2014-April-02, 12:03, said:

Unless he had the original facts wrong.

Why should the original facts be wrong? Yet again, someone from a different country is suggesting the facts known were wrong. I really think people should stop doing this unless they were present at the time.

As I pointed out previously, what difference does it make anyway? An interesting problem is put forward: if it is actually different form what happened - and I really wonder why Phil thinks it is - does that mean we should not discuss it? I am sure some of Paul's posts are invented but they are reasonable things to discuss. So it does not really matter if a Norwegian thinks he knows an English post is wrong or an Englishman thinks a German post is wrong: it does not make the case of no interest.