[blackshoe]

I don't see how anyone can claim "south clearly meant the spade finesse", when he didn't say anything of the kind. The TD cannot put words in a player's mouth. Nor do an opponent's assumptions mean anything. Claimer stated a line of play. That line is clear, as I posted earlier. If the J doesn't fall on the first round of clubs, take the club finesse. If it works, and here it does, the claim is valid.

[bluejak]

He has said a line of play, but you have assumed a different line which he neither said nor meant, and that is not how claims are ruled.

Unlike other things in the Laws, we are not bound to follow an imperfect claim statement. There is plenty of precedent that we do not assume an imperfect claim statement means an imperfect claim. Law 70A allows the TD latitude to use common sense in a way not allowed by other Laws.

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

[blackshoe]

It's late and I'm tired. Apparently I need to reread the thread. Certainly one of us does. But I'm going to bed now. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2010-November-03, 20:40, said:

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

How do you know what he meant? Perhaps LHO did not hold her/his cards up and declarer saw CJ there. I think it is fine for either defender, or for the TD, to ask if his line of play is 1 round of clubs followed by club to the 10. I do believe it is right to simply assume that the stated line of play was mis-stated. I think West's actual query: "I assume you mean the spade finesse?" essentially suggesting a losing alternative, sounds like something from a Victor Mollo book.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2010-November-03, 19:43, said:

If the club jack does not fall, I allow him to succeed or fail on the position of the ♠K. If it is singleton offside, fine, he loses to it.

bluejak, on 2010-November-03, 20:40, said:

He has said a line of play, but you have assumed a different line which he neither said nor meant, and that is not how claims are ruled.

To the contrary, David, it seems that you have assumed a different line from that which he said.

bluejak, on 2010-November-03, 20:40, said:

Unlike other things in the Laws, we are not bound to follow an imperfect claim statement. There is plenty of precedent that we do not assume an imperfect claim statement means an imperfect claim. Law 70A allows the TD latitude to use common sense in a way not allowed by other Laws.

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

How do you know that the player meant what you think, when it differs from what he clearly said?

[gordontd]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-03, 17:50, said:

But we don't play according to what people meant; we play according to what people said.

Not invariably.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2010-November-04, 02:29, said:

How do you know that the player meant what you think, when it differs from what he clearly said?

I suggest the TD might actually ask the player what he meant! Bluejak has argued in other contexts that in his experience players very rarely actually lie when asked questions by the TD. But I think it would be reasonable if he says that he meant exactly what he said to follow up by asking why he proposed to play the hand in that way.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-04, 02:42, said:

I suggest the TD might actually ask the player what he meant!

The TD might well have benefited from asking something like that - asking him to repeat the basis of his claim (though the actions of the player's RHO have rather spoiled that), but my question was specifically to Bluejak, who is assuming that the player did not mean what he said. I wondered how he knows that.

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-04, 02:42, said:

Bluejak has argued in other contexts that in his experience players very rarely actually lie when asked questions by the TD. But I think it would be reasonable if he says that he meant exactly what he said to follow up by asking why he proposed to play the hand in that way.

I think if you have asked him what he meant, and he says he meant what he said, there is no need to follow up by asking why he is playing that way. His opponents might have good reason to feel aggrieved if you seem to be encouraging him to a new, better, unstated line.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2010-November-03, 19:43, said:

If the club jack does not fall, I allow him to succeed or fail on the position of the ♠K. If it is singleton offside, fine, he loses to it.

Finally some sense. That this is correct can be clearly seen if you change South's hearts to AK8x and change South's statement to "taking the heart finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop". Those who allow the Secretary Bird sitting West to win the nine of hearts should take up poker or Diplomacy.

[lamford]

[quote name='WellSpyder' timestamp='1288860143' post='507225']
I suggest the TD might actually ask the player what he meant!

We all know exactly what the player meant. Including the Secretary Bird who contested the claim, or the Secretary Bird who stated that he did in fact mean the club finesse. Don't try to present nonsense that he intended to cash one club and then finesse the ten.

[hotShot]

"Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down"

I take that as:

Declarer wants to take the club finesse as soon as possible.

So unless West can't follow suit in ♣, the ♠K is irrelevant.

[pran]

pran, on 2010-November-03, 17:00, said:

This discussion is strange:

Please show where the laws allow the Director to deviate from an unambiguous claim statement on the ground that the stated line of play is irrational?

(And a line of play that has 51% probability of success can hardly be ruled irrational)

lamford, on 2010-November-03, 17:12, said:

Law 70E1. And a line of play that is over 99% could be irrational, so your argument is ridiculous. Say that you hold twelve solid spades and the singleton ace of hearts. You are in seven spades on a minor suit lead. If you lead the ace of hearts it is ruffed, but you claim instead. Not drawing the single outstanding trump first would be irrational. And 70C2 is clear on this.

Law 70E (including Law 70E1) applies to new lines of play not mentioned in the original statement, not to the original line of play claim statement.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2010-November-04, 03:14, said:

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-04, 02:42, said:

I suggest the TD might actually ask the player what he meant!

We all know exactly what the player meant. Including the Secretary Bird who contested the claim, or the Secretary Bird who stated that he did in fact mean the club finesse. Don't try to present nonsense that he intended to cash one club and then finesse the ten.

I'm not the one round here presenting nonsense! Whatever the likelihood that the player meant something other than what they said (and I agree with those who think this is by far the most likely case) it still feels to me that the best way to resolve this amicably is to ask them to confirm what they meant.

When I suggested a follow-up question if they confirmed they meant what they said, asking why they were planning to play it way, it was in the context of assuming that by the time the TD was asking questions the players knew that the winning line was the illogical play actually stated rather than the more sensible line we think they meant. I agree with gordontd that there is no need for such a follow-up question if the defenders' hands are not yet known.

[lamford]

pran, on 2010-November-04, 04:11, said:

Law 70E (including Law 70E1) applies to new lines of play not mentioned in the original statement, not to the original line of play claim statement.

The spade finesse is a new line of play; the club finesse was the original statement.

<snip> 70E1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

This has the natural corollary:

If failure to adopt the line of play of the spade finesse would be irrational, then the director will accept that line of play, even though it was unstated, and whether or not an opponent failed to follow to a spade before the claim was made and whether or not he stated something else.

[blackshoe]

Explain to me why not taking the spade finesse is irrational.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2010-November-03, 16:43, said:

And I think the show-up squeeze is exactly the same as cashing the clubs and taking the spade finesse (when, as here, everyone follows to three clubs). A country mile ahead of the stated line.

No, it wins additionally against the singleton offside ♠K. Does this make you irrational?

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-04, 05:28, said:

No, it wins additionally against the singleton offside ♠K. Does this make you irrational?

When you reach trick twelve, the opponents will have three spades and the jack of clubs left (the latter in either hand).

a) You lead a spade and left-hand opponent follows with the king. He was squeezed, but you have not gained anything as the finesse would have worked.

b ) You lead a spade and left-hand opponent follows small. Finessing is now correct, as playing for RHO to have been squeezed is an error (inferior, not irrational), as with four clubs, he is slightly less likely to have the king of spades. Similarly he is less likely to have the singleton king of spades.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-04, 05:28, said:

Explain to me why not taking the spade finesse is irrational.

You have twelve tricks. The "normal" line, for most good players, is to cash three clubs and take the spade finesse. Some might play it out, trying to guess whether the anti-percentage squeeze on East is better (it isn't). If it is decided that the only normal line for a player of this calibre is the one he attempted to state but had an obvious slip of the tongue, he gets his contract. More problematic is when West says, "the jack of clubs does not drop and the spade finesse is wrong, so you are one off". South says, "I said club finesse, not spade finesse". I think you have to replace the stated irrational and successful line with the only rational and unsuccessful line. Which is what Law 70E1 states. But not in every case. Each one has to be judged on its merits.

If you do not, you create an new Alcatraz Coup for South, who will find out which opponent objects to his claim.

[WellSpyder]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-04, 05:28, said:

No, it wins additionally against the singleton offside ♠K. Does this make you irrational?

I think you are assuming the ♣J is marked in West's hand. But of course if both defenders follow to 3 rounds of clubs then there is no reason why this is the case. By all means play for the show-up squeeze if West is indeed marked with ♣J, but this only gains when West has both 5 clubs (so the club position is marked) and 6 spades (so there is a chance of dropping ♠K offside).

[bluejak]

If we follow the original line as stated we cash three rounds of clubs. If the ♣J does not come down, we take the club finesse.

So, because that is nonsense, you assume he meant something else. But the difference I assume he meant what everyone knows he meant, half the posts assume he meant something else. As for asking me how I know what he meant, be serious, please.