[nigel_k]

 pooltuna, on 2011-March-10, 16:33, said:

Well if there are 2 lines of play that are essentially equilikely presummably the NOS side gets the benefit of assuming the failing one will be played?

Usually a questionable claim is not an irregularity so there is no NOS. But here, declarer's failure to state a line means that N/S can get the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that the test is based on what is likely to have happened. While there is doubt about what would have happened, there is not really any doubt about what is likely to have happened. The fact that declarer claimed means it was certainly not likely he planned to ruff high and finesse through North.

[bluejak]

No, of course he did not intend to, because he presumably did not realise the problem. If he had played it out, he would presumably have ruffed high, cashed a high trump - and come to a halt as suddenly he realised he had a problem - and then he might decide to follow the losing line.

The benefit of the doubt goes to the non-claiming side because the Law says it does, not because he failed to state a line. Claims without statements are very common, and generally are equivalent to a claim statement of "I am playing it in the obvious way". The huge majority of such claims are fine, but do not get to forums. It really makes no difference whether he makes no statement, or an inaccurate one: they get treated the same.

[nigel_k]

If the claim is contested, the non-claiming side gets the benefit of the doubt under 70A.

But once the claim is agreed to, as it was here, if the non-claiming side want to contest it later they have to do so under 69B, which has no 'benefit of the doubt' provision. Instead they have to show they would likely have won a trick.

What I think pooltuna was suggesting is that N/S, as the non-offending side, can rely on 84D so they are still entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That is the point is was replying to. The failure to state a line is an infraction, so N/S are the non-offenders and 84D applies. If declarer had stated a line, even an incomplete one, there would be no infraction and no application of 84D.

[bluejak]

Oh, well, I just read this without remembering the earlier part of the thread.

If it was a claim accepted at the time and later disputed then Law 69B applies whether there was a claim statement or not. Law 69B is pretty well worded to make this clear. The benefit of the doubt has shifted.

[iviehoff]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 18:36, said:

Law 69B is pretty well worded to make this clear. The benefit of the doubt has shifted.

We agree that the benefit of the doubt has shifted. But how much? We are trying to work out just what L69B does mean in this case, and we don't find it so clear. How likely does it have to be to be 69B-likely?

[dburn]

Research indicates that the claimer was one of the team that won last year's Gold Cup - except that it wasn't me, so may have been my replacement. Further details will be added as they become available.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-March-10, 16:00, said:

According to the opening post, West claimed after South had led a 4th heart. One possible explanation of the claim was that West had not appreciated that dummy would have to follow to the 4th heart; If dummy had been now void of hearts, then ruffing with the 10 or 8 would have been a 100% line.

I expect he would then have stated "cashing the king or queen first, so that I can pick up Jxxx in either hand", as I think that he could be ruled against if he did not.

Gordontd seems to think South is more likely to have a singleton spade for the 1H overcall, but I am unconvinced. Applying restricted choice to a situation where an opponent overcalls is fraught, as he looks at his cards before bidding (at least adherents to 7B2 do). In fact it is quite surprising when someone overcalls with a four-card suit, and especially so given the defenders have eleven clubs between them. If West's longest suit is hearts, then he is very likely to have a doubleton spade, as the four-two heart break will be more than compensated by a putative four-seven club break. I disagree with dburn's assertion that it is slightly better to ruff high and finesse - it is too close to call.

I would rule one off - up to the end of the correction period - wherever the jack of spades is. But in response to the opening post, is it not for the WBFLC to pronounce on how likely they intend likely to be? Dictionary meanings vary from plausible to probable, so we rule in favour of the non-offenders if it is plausible that the declarer would have lost a trick. We know likely cannot mean >50% from a sentence such as "there were several likely candidates".

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2011-March-12, 10:21, said:

We know likely cannot mean >50% from a sentence such as "there were several likely candidates".

This seems to me to just be nonsense, since all we are determining is whether something is likely or not. In that context likely as >50% seems eminently reasonable.

I can make up a sentence like "There is only one likely outcome". Does this mean that likely = 100%? Of course not.

[gordontd]

 dburn, on 2011-March-11, 16:42, said:

Research indicates that the claimer was one of the team that won last year's Gold Cup - except that it wasn't me, so may have been my replacement. Further details will be added as they become available.

The further detail that has come to me (by way of a phone conversation with one of the players at the table) is that they were in 5♠, not 4♠, so they had already gone off at the moment of the claim and no-one realised that there was more to the hand. The match was close enough until the final two boards that an extra undertrick could have been significant.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2011-March-12, 10:21, said:

We know likely cannot mean >50% from a sentence such as "there were several likely candidates".

 gordontd, on 2011-March-12, 11:38, said:

This seems to me to just be nonsense, since all we are determining is whether something is likely or not. In that context likely as >50% seems eminently reasonable.

I can make up a sentence like "There is only one likely outcome". Does this mean that likely = 100%? Of course not.

While I am not necessarily agreeing with lamford, your reasoning is not 100% correct. If one states that there is one likely outcome than that implicitly means that there are 1 or more unlikely outcomes. Now, if there is 1 other outcome with a probability of 1 %, the likely outcome has a probability of 99%. But it may well be that there are 900 unlikely other outcomes, each with a probability of 0.1 %. That leaves 10% for the "likely outcome".

In short, the boundary for what is "likely" could, in principle, be anywhere.

Now, we happen to be very fortunate here. There are only two possible outcomes:
A: Declarer chooses a winning line with the outcome that he makes his contract.
B: Declarer chooses a losing line with the outcome that he goes one down.

So, in this particular case, I think "likely" is defined as "more likely than the other possible outcome", which is than equivalent to >50%.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Depends on the player. I would give the claim to Hamman. Watching VuGraph I have seen him in instances similar to this, where each time he just played the interior trump, rather than roughing up and hooking. I believe he was right once and wrong twice, so this would get him to even.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2011-March-12, 11:38, said:

This seems to me to just be nonsense, since all we are determining is whether something is likely or not. In that context likely as >50% seems eminently reasonable.

I can make up a sentence like "There is only one likely outcome". Does this mean that likely = 100%? Of course not.

You would be right if there were a single trick remaining, but I think that most TDs can establish whether it is likely that someone would win trick 13 or not. Most of the time, however, there will be several tricks remaining, with a different probability of each being won by either side. In this example, there is a probability that North will win this trick with the five of spades - let us say that it is 5%. There is a probability that South will win a later trick with the jack of spades - let us say that this is 49%. You would argue that there is no trick that it is likely that the defence would have won, as none of them is individually greater than 50%. Perhaps the criterion should be that the sum of the probabilities of all the likely tricks the defence might have won should be greater than 50%. But it is clearly not required that likely means >50% in that context.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-March-12, 13:05, said:

So, in this particular case, I think "likely" is defined as "more likely than the other possible outcome", which is than equivalent to >50%.

Rik

The Law does not say "likely to make his contract". It refers to any trick that was likely to have been won.

[FrancesHinden]

 aguahombre, on 2011-March-12, 14:23, said:

Depends on the player. I would give the claim to Hamman. Watching VuGraph I have seen him in instances similar to this, where each time he just played the interior trump, rather than roughing up and hooking. I believe he was right once and wrong twice, so this would get him to even.

I doubt Hamman does it without thinking about each hand individually

[aguahombre]

Was feeble attempt at humor

[bluejak]

"would likely have won ..."

Declarer might have ruffed with the 8 or 10, but that seems pretty unlikely. So let us eliminate that.

No doubt declarer would have ruffed high, then considered which high trump to cash next. Heart 4-2, clubs unmentioned, how many would South have? I don't think this tells him much, though you might infer that South is unlikely to have six or seven clubs. But you have no idea of the diamond distribution. Eventually, declarer will cash a high trump, let's say either one equally, then lead another, ponder [if the jack has not appeared], and finesse 50% of the time [or less: personal view: even top players do not like finessing against jacks]. So the defence will make a trick one time in four at most.

In my understanding of the English language, that might be considered "might have won" but certainly not "would likely have won ...".

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-13, 16:48, said:

Eventually, declarer will cash a high trump, let's say either one equally, then lead another, ponder [if the jack has not appeared], and finesse 50% of the time [or less: personal view: even top players do not like finessing against jacks]. So the defence will make a trick one time in four at most.

I've asked various players about this hand this week. They all thought it was close, but all but one of them finessed. The other one finessed the other way, but admitted he had no reason for playing that way. So, you think it's about 25% while I would think it's well over 50%.

[phil_20686]

Everyone seems to think that finesse is %, but I dont. I think playing for 2-2 spades is % by a reasonable margin:

(1) People generally only make 4 card over calls when they have a decent hand, so it seems right to put south with both the club honours. Certainly he must have one.
(2) Few people would choose the 4 card heart suit if they had a 6 card club suit. Its too big a distortion, so it seems likely that south is 2-4-2-5 or 2-4-3-4.
(3) If south has 3 spades to the J he would have made a take out double. - it is inconceivable that he has too few clubs.

Given this, I think it is a prior 5/9 that north holds the spade J. However, if you have excluded from the south hands hands with 3, 4 or 0 spades, then 2-2 is a prior more likely than a given 3-1 break by nearly 15%. In fact, if we simply removed the excluded shapes the spades are roughly 40/(40+0.5*50) = 8/13 to be 2-2. Considerably better odds.

I'm pretty tired right now so might have overlooked this. Maybe one of the better players can confirm, but it seems like 2-2 spades are favoured.

[phil_20686]

because I was too lazy to think any more, I demanded that south have 5 or fewer clubs, fewer than 3 spades (else t/o double), and at least two diamonds (again not a t/o double) with both the kq of clubs, and on those conditions my sim of 25 hands found 5 boards where the finesse wins, and 9 where the drop wins and 11 where either win. This seems roughly in line: with what I guesstimated above.

So I would ruff this high and play a second top trump from my hand. assuming no J of spades it is now right to cash the second top spade.

[gordontd]

 phil_20686, on 2011-March-15, 17:23, said:

Few people would choose the 4 card heart suit if they had a 6 card club suit. Its too big a distortion, so it seems likely that south is 2-4-2-5 or 2-4-3-4.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise (not that I accept your premise - who was that author whose players at Ann Arbor bridge club seemed to endlessly bid four-card majors with a six-card minor on the side?)

What about 1-4-4-4, 1-4-3-5?