[Cyberyeti]

sacto123, on 2018-April-08, 20:05, said:

If you play the Q and then claim, all cards are faced and you are not allowed to take a finesse.

I agree with that, but he hasn't claimed in that circumstance, I'm saying that even if you force him to play the Q which is ridiculous in itself, the contract still makes by normal play.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2018-April-08, 17:42, said:

It's inconsistent with the claim, which IMO is prima facie evidence that it is illogical.

Not sure what this means. Inconsistent with the (non-existant) line of play statement? Inconsistent with the fact that he claimed at all? In the latter case, how so?

[axman]

barmar, on 2018-April-08, 18:21, said:

The claim implies that declarer recognizes that he received a free finesse on the opening lead. I would be embarassed to dispute this claim.

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2018-April-09, 09:30, said:

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

Yes. Everyone seems to think that the claimer “obviously knows”. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. But he can easily say so.

The problem with accepting claims without statements in cases that could possibly go wrong is that it is a slippery slope, and every director individually decides where to draw the line. I would rather dispense with the line entirely.

[barmar]

axman, on 2018-April-09, 09:30, said:

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

Silent claims often do. Something like "if you don't see the obvious 13 tricks, you must be blind."

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-April-10, 08:25, said:

Silent claims often do. Something like "if you don't see the obvious 13 tricks, you must be blind."

When there are 13 obvious tricks - fine.

This thread concerns a case with a maximum of 12 obvious tricks.

[sfi]

Last time you counted 11, so you are getting closer.

[pran]

sfi, on 2018-April-10, 09:16, said:

Last time you counted 11, so you are getting closer.

I concede that several of you count 12 obvious tricks.
I don't when I include the possibility of careless or inferior play (which Law 70E1 requires me to do).
That is why I wrote maximum 12 (to cater for the lenient Director).

[MrAce]

---

According to some of you, TD should not accept a silent claim by South, in 7 NT contract, when the lead is small ♠.
You may of course claim that you are not sure whether declarer would play the ♠K or small.
But your doubt does not change my mind about what declarer intended to do.
If anything, it says more about you and your counting skills.

[MrAce]

Here is a better example;

You hold KT9 in dummy and AJ8 in hand. You cleared trumps and made the elimination and put one of your opponents in. He has to play sluff'n ruff or play this suit. This is a daily base type of claim that almost no one makes any explanation. Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here. If there are people who do not get this position and needs to be explained, but somehow spend his/her time to read the law book all the way deep into the smallest details, needs to get a life (or another game) imo. And the situation is precisely the same in OP.

[blackshoe]

"Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here."

And that changes the law? Oh, I see. I'll go look for a life, then.

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2018-April-10, 16:20, said:

---

According to some of you, TD should not accept a silent claim by South, in 7 NT contract, when the lead is small ♠.
You may of course claim that you are not sure whether declarer would play the ♠K or small.
But your doubt does not change my mind about what declarer intended to do.
If anything, it says more about you and your counting skills.

Please include the link in which this hand was discussed. I do not remember it.

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2018-April-10, 18:44, said:

Please include the link in which this hand was discussed. I do not remember it.

It's the same hand as in the original post. Only the cards are different.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2018-April-10, 18:55, said:

It's the same hand as in the original post. Only the cards are different.

Maybe not so different. There are 13 cards in each suit.

[MrAce]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-10, 17:45, said:

"Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here."

And that changes the law? Oh, I see. I'll go look for a life, then.

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.
To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2018-April-10, 21:41, said:

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.
To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

Yes this is my problem with it, I'm being told that it's merely careless or inferior to do something so moronic I wouldn't have done it for 40 years of my bridge life. Yes if there was a possible entry issue maybe, but not in this case.

[pran]

MrAce, on 2018-April-10, 21:41, said:

No it does not change the law. The guy who did not explain has to accept the consequences of it as written in the law.
To force that player NOT TO win an already led card with his cheapest spot available is not one of the consequences! Which part of it you guys are having hard time to understand misses me!

Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-11, 06:13, said:

Yes this is my problem with it, I'm being told that it's merely careless or inferior to do something so moronic I wouldn't have done it for 40 years of my bridge life. Yes if there was a possible entry issue maybe, but not in this case.

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2018-April-11, 07:04, said:

We were told in the very first post on this thread that:

Peer of S at other table, in same contract and same lead, plays the Q at T1 !!

Then why should the Director discard the possibility of the same play at this table when applying Law 70E1 ?

Because he had a cow fly by, you have to ? absolutely irrelevant unless neither declarer has been playing the game for more than 10 minutes.

[weejonnie]

It all comes down to whether failing to run the club round to the ten is not 'normal' ('includes careless or inferior' - although no one has yet defined what 'careless or inferior' really is. Technically it is IMHO any play that does not involve an infraction e.g. a revoke, leading from wrong hand etc). The use of the word 'irrational' (never used in this law of course) gave scope for discussion.)

As Declarer I can see 3 spades 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and 6 clubs = 13 tricks. I think it is only careless to not cater for a 5-0 club split since it seems logical to plan to unblock the Queen, Win the red suit tricks in dummy, and cash three spades, leaving South with 5 'winning' clubs. (Note West has to discard the Q[d] on the third spade).

So I will rule 1 down - I won't even allow declarer to finesse the Hearts.

Next time declarer will say "Running the club to the J9, unblock the Queen, Cash the two Ace Kings in Dummy and then 3 spades ending in my hand: then playing clubs from the top."

Note that this is quite a long required explanation, which requires several technical plays - thus plenty of scope for declarer to do something else.

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2018-April-10, 17:39, said:

Here is a better example;

You hold KT9 in dummy and AJ8 in hand. You cleared trumps and made the elimination and put one of your opponents in. He has to play sluff'n ruff or play this suit. This is a daily base type of claim that almost no one makes any explanation. Making an explanation is more like an insult rather than explanation here. If there are people who do not get this position and needs to be explained, but somehow spend his/her time to read the law book all the way deep into the smallest details, needs to get a life (or another game) imo. And the situation is precisely the same in OP.

Whether I give a detailed explanation would depend on the expertise of my opponents (assuming I'm playing against people I know).

If they know how to execute a strip-and-endplay, I'd just face my hand, and perhaps say "you're endplayed", expecting them to recognize the situation. As you said, to do more is insulting their bridge intelligence.

If they're novices (or life novices), I'd explain the details of how the endplay works. Or I might not even claim until after they lead to the next trick, when it becomes clear whether I'm ruffing or taking the free finesse. I'm not worried about insulting their intelligence -- these are the players who routinely question claims that come with clear explanations ("What about my ace?" "I said I was giving you that trick.").