[VixTD]

Swiss Pairs, love all.

---

East was declarer in 6♠, lead ♠10. After two rounds of trumps he led ♠A and claimed the rest, saying he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond, thinking he had a doubleton diamond in hand. He realised his mistake in the process of claiming.

Are you minded to give him thirteen tricks, or twelve, or even some other number?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2013-September-03, 11:17, said:

Swiss Pairs, love all.

---

East was declarer in 6♠, lead ♠10. After two rounds of trumps he led ♠A and claimed the rest, saying he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond, thinking he had a doubleton diamond in hand. He realised his mistake in the process of claiming.

Are you minded to give him thirteen tricks, or twelve, or even some other number?

Following the claim statement as far as it goes East will discover that his discard of a Club on a Diamond doesn't exist, but instead he will have noticed the ♥Q dropping under the King.

Law 70E allows him to then discard his second Club loser on the ♥J so I shall give him his 13 tricks.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-03, 11:17, said:

Swiss Pairs, love all.
East was declarer in 6♠, lead ♠10. After two rounds of trumps he led ♠A and claimed the rest, saying he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond, thinking he had a doubleton diamond in hand. He realised his mistake in the process of claiming.
Are you minded to give him thirteen tricks, or twelve, or even some other number?

---

Perhaps, if declarer realises his mistake before completing his claim statement without extraneous information, he should be allowed to correct it -- but does that accord with the law?

[mycroft]

I agree with Sven - his claim statement pretty much implies he'll unblock the ♥A to get the pitch on the K, and doing so leads to 13 tricks the lucky way.

I'm not going to force him to revoke, or try to pitch on the fourth diamond, or cash the club ace before finding he can't pitch on the fourth diamond.

[lamford]

I would award 13 tricks here, the worst normal line for declarer. To attempt to discard a club on the "thirteenth diamond" is a normal line until North produces the fourteenth diamond. South will then ruff this (to discard is not normal) and discard his club on the jack of hearts instead. And yes, it does accord with the Law - to adjudicate the claim equitably resolving doubtful points against the claimant.

I think the best line is to test the hearts, cash the ace of clubs, and ruff a heart. If nothing good has happened, one should run the spades always making 12, and making 13:
a) whenever diamonds are 3-3
b) whenever the queen of hearts comes down in three rounds
c) whenever South has the heart guard and North the club guard (there is an automatic double squeeze)
d) whenever South has the club and diamond guard (there is a simple squeeze)

Someone claiming this way would, no doubt, actually cost time rather than save it. And I am by no means sure that there is not a better line.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2013-September-03, 18:47, said:

I would award 13 tricks here, the worst normal line for declarer. To attempt to discard a club on the "thirteenth diamond" is a normal line until North produces the fourteenth diamond. South will then ruff this (to discard is not normal) and discard his club on the jack of hearts instead. And yes, it does accord with the Law - to adjudicate the claim equitably resolving doubtful points against the claimant.

I think the best line is to test the hearts, cash the ace of clubs, and ruff a heart. If nothing good has happened, one should run the spades always making 12, and making 13:
a) whenever diamonds are 3-3
b) whenever the queen of hearts comes down in three rounds
c) whenever South has the heart guard and North the club guard (there is an automatic double squeeze)
d) whenever South has the club and diamond guard (there is a simple squeeze)

Someone claiming this way would, no doubt, actually cost time rather than save it. And I am by no means sure that there is not a better line.

I agree with awarding thirteen tricks, but it wasn't the fourth round of diamonds he thought he would be discarding on: it was the third round, because he thought he had a doubleton.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-September-04, 01:24, said:

I agree with awarding thirteen tricks, but it wasn't the fourth round of diamonds he thought he would be discarding on: it was the third round, because he thought he had a doubleton.

Yes, I was aware that was his misconception, but I thought his clarification statement was "[saying] he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond". I think we try to follow that statement until it breaks down; if he had said "on the third diamond", I think it breaks down straight away and we fall back on the worst normal line. I would imagine that he did not say "thinking [I have] a doubleton diamond in hand", but this was stated when an opponent queried the claim.

[vigfus]

I would only give East 12 tricks.

I would never force East to revoke on the 3rd diamond trick.
I would not allow him to try to check if heart queen was coming by ruffing small heart.
I would not allow him to "SEE" the heart queen come under the king. His mind is buisy throwing his clubs on winners in dummy.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-September-03, 18:47, said:

I would award 13 tricks here, the worst normal line for declarer. To attempt to discard a club on the "thirteenth diamond" is a normal line until North produces the fourteenth diamond. South will then ruff this (to discard is not normal) and discard his club on the jack of hearts instead. And yes, it does accord with the Law - to adjudicate the claim equitably resolving doubtful points against the claimant.I think the best line is to test the hearts, cash the ace of clubs, and ruff a heart. If nothing good has happened, one should run the spades always making 12, and making 13:
a) whenever diamonds are 3-3
b) whenever the queen of hearts comes down in three
rounds
c) whenever South has the heart guard and North the club guard (there
is an automatic double squeeze)
d) whenever South has the club and diamond guard (there is a simple squeeze)
Someone claiming this way would, no doubt, actually cost time rather than save it. And I am by no means sure that there is not a better line.

Lamford suggests a good line but how far may the director go in correcting declarer's defective claim? Especially when the claim is as explicit, clear, and comprehensive as in the OP case? Suppose, for example, that declarer volunteers no self-serving afterthoughts and the director isn't as expert a player as Lambert? What is Gnasher's "worst normal line" here? In particular how should the director rule when ...

• Dummy has ♥ K T x x and an opponent has ♥ Q J doubleton?
• Dummy has ♥ K 9 x x and an opponent has ♥ Q J T tripleton?
• Declarer is Helgemo and there's no joy in the red suits but Lambert's pretty double-squeeze materialises?

[mycroft]

I don't see that, having pitched the club under the ♥K, declarer is ever going to miss the Q. Many times, I've been trying to keep my transportation, playing off a suit to figure out where I go from there, and when I see a key card drop short, claiming "in that case..."

I find that beyond careless. Others may (and clearly do) believe otherwise.

[iviehoff]

vigfus, on 2013-September-04, 10:27, said:

I would only give East 12 tricks.

Just goes to show it is practically impossible to get unanimity on any kind of dodgy claim situation.

On the other question, whether, part way through your claim statement, you find it doesn't work with no UI, yes I think you can say "ignore that, it makes no sense, I'm saying this instead". He'd have to say he now realises that it isn't clear whether he has 12 or 13 tricks, but he could describe the line of play he take to attempt to get 13 tricks. I think that would have been the more satisfactory way of proceeding. After all, here we are, judging his claim by wondering what he will do when he discovers his line doesn't work. If he has already discovered that it doesn't work, without any UI, he can tell us and we can cease wondering.

[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 02:42, said:

Just goes to show it is practically impossible to get unanimity on any kind of dodgy claim situation.

On the other question, whether, part way through your claim statement, you find it doesn't work with no UI, yes I think you can say "ignore that, it makes no sense, I'm saying this instead". He'd have to say he now realises that it isn't clear whether he has 12 or 13 tricks, but he could describe the line of play he take to attempt to get 13 tricks. I think that would have been the more satisfactory way of proceeding. After all, here we are, judging his claim by wondering what he will do when he discovers his line doesn't work. If he has already discovered that it doesn't work, without any UI, he can tell us and we can cease wondering.

I fully agree with this.

After the TD comes to the table and hears what has happened (including: "but that won't work since I have 3 diamonds instead of 2"), he will basically need to ask East: "So, your original claim for 13 tricks is wrong. What do you want to claim now?".

It is well possible that declarer says that he takes his 12 tricks. Then that is what he is going to get and everyone is happy. It is also possible that declarer immediately says that he will test hearts and diamonds first and if there is no good news he will take 12, otherwise 13. So, he will get 13 in this case and justice is done.

Rik

[VixTD]

vigfus, on 2013-September-04, 10:27, said:

I would only give East 12 tricks.

I would never force East to revoke on the 3rd diamond trick.
I would not allow him to try to check if heart queen was coming by ruffing small heart.
I would not allow him to "SEE" the heart queen come under the king. His mind is buisy throwing his clubs on winners in dummy.

I agree with Vigfus up to the last point. If a ruff had been necessary to bring down the queen, I don't think I'd allow it, but I wouldn't rule that East wouldn't notice the queen falling.

East was awarded thirteen tricks.

[mycroft]

Er, I should be clear that I, too, agree with vigfus up until the last statement. If the ♥Q were trebleton, and there was a reasonable line of play that blocks dummy, then they get that line. But it didn't - it dropped under the K. And as I said before, failure to notice that is beyond careless in my opinion.

[Sjoerds]

What he thought is difficult to find out:
What he said is stated:
"saying he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond"
I he does so he will get 12 tricks

[gordontd]

Sjoerds, on 2013-September-13, 05:55, said:

What he thought is difficult to find out:
What he said is stated:
"saying he would throw one club on ♥K and one on a diamond"

I believe he actually said he would throw one on the third round of diamonds, which we can't allow him to do because that would be a revoke.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2013-September-13, 05:57, said:

I believe he actually said he would throw one on the third round of diamonds, which we can't allow him to do because that would be a revoke.

Maybe that's why I usually say "the long diamond", it's not as susceptible to this problem. But if the suit isn't guaranteed to set up, I might make a provisional claim like "I'll throw a club on the long diamond if they break 3-3" -- I wonder if I get the trick if I fail to add the conditional, but the suit turns out to be 3-3?