[bluejak]

If he had said "see if the ♣J falls, and take the ♠ finesse if it does not" then you would take that to mean cash three clubs. And that is what "see if the ♣J falls" means, and mangling the language to suggest it means something different is not the right way to approach this problem.

[mycroft]

Well, on Tuesday night, again, my inability to articulate the black suits came up as declarer. I'd pulled trump (spades), except for the Ace; I was now going to run my clubs to see if the fourth would grow up (I need the pitch, but I have a control if they ruff early). I called for the top spade. It's absolutely clear in my thoughts that it was a slip of the tongue, not of the mind - and it's one that happens quite commonly, say twice a year, with me (usually the other way around, though).

Unlike other times, however, my body language and immediate connection response wasn't 100% clear that that was what happened; and had the TD been called, I am not sure I would have met the "OVERWHELMING" standard of proof criterion for inadvertent in the ACBL - but it was clear that our opponents thought it was inadvertent, because they allowed the change.

It may not be explicit in the Laws, but I would allow "inadvertent" misspeaking in a claim, with a similar standard of proof. I will admit that the claim statement in the OP immediately triggered my "was this me?" reaction

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-November-05, 10:22, said:

If he had said "see if the ♣J falls, and take the ♠ finesse if it does not" then you would take that to mean cash three clubs. And that is what "see if the ♣J falls" means, and mangling the language to suggest it means something different is not the right way to approach this problem.

Nobody said "see if the ♣J falls". Claimer said "Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down." Almost, but not quite, the same thing. Since declarer has only 2 clubs, the only line consistent with his statement is to take one top club, return to hand, and take the finesse. And that statement is true even if someone wants to interpret what he said to mean something else. However, Paul's late admission into evidence that declarer agreed with West that he meant "spade finesse" rather than "club finesse" changes things. If the TD accepts that's what he meant, then I agree with three rounds of clubs and then the spade finesse. OTOH, as to the "irrationality" of the stated line (without the later caveat) I agree with Sven. It may be silly, but it ain't irrational.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-05, 14:48, said:

However, Paul's late admission into evidence that declarer agreed with West that he meant "spade finesse" rather than "club finesse" changes things. If the TD accepts that's what he meant, then I agree with three rounds of clubs and then the spade finesse. OTOH, as to the "irrationality" of the stated line (without the later caveat) I agree with Sven. It may be silly, but it ain't irrational.

But I hope that if declarer maintained that he meant "club finesse" you would not give him the contract. A colleague of mine - a top director - thinks that the declarer "could have known" that stating that he would take the club finese was a remark designed to deceive (ethical) opponents. Almost all Wests would accept that he meant spade finesse, and thus he wins the contract whenever the jack of clubs in onside, or whenever the jack of clubs falls or the spade is onside. This "irrational coup" cannot be allowed to be a successful way of claiming! And I think silly and irrational are pretty much the same for the purposes of the claim law. If it is silly, it is probably irrational not inferior.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2010-November-05, 20:25, said:

But I hope that if declarer maintained that he meant "club finesse" you would not give him the contract.

Not if the club finesse fails, no, whatever happens in spades.