[jallerton]

---

Matchpoint pairs.

West plays in 4H after the opponents have bid and raised spades.

The defence start with 2 rounds of spades (South wins the jack and returns a low one) and declarer ruffs.

Declarer draws trumps in 4 rounds, his LHO having 4.

Declarer plays the ♣K and his LHO takes the ace and plays ♠K, ruffed with the last trump.

Declarer now play a diamond to the 9, king and ace.

RHO cashes ♠A on which declarer discards a diamond and next hand follows suit. Declarer now claims for two off (not stating a line) expecting the fifth spade next with the 2 minor suit queens taking the last two tricks.

What declarer did not notice is that his RHO had discarded a spade when declarer was in the process of drawings trumps. The defender admits to this and says he’s going to play a low diamond. The TD is called (by dummy) and this is the 3-card minor suit ending:

---

TD's ruling: one trick to declarer, two to the defence.
Basis of TD's ruling: finessing ♦10 is a normal line of play, so declarer only makes ♣Q.

E/W appeal.
Basis of appeal: declarer claimed two tricks which were the minor suit queens, known to be winners. The defence cannot prevent him from winning these tricks. In practice ♦10 would be established (and declarer would know this to be a winner when he sees the ♦J fall, so there's a good case for 3 tricks to declarer.

Suppose you are on the AC. How do you assess this one?

[nige1]

 jallerton, on 2014-June-13, 11:17, said:

Matchpoint pairs. The defence start with 2 rounds of spades (South wins the jack and returns a low one) and declarer ruffs. Declarer draws trumps in 4 rounds, his LHO having 4. Declarer plays the ♣K and his LHO takes the ace and plays ♠K, ruffed with the last trump. Declarer now play a diamond to the 9, king and ace. RHO cashes ♠A on which declarer discards a diamond and next hand follows suit. Declarer now claims for two off (not stating a line) expecting the fifth spade next with the 2 minor suit queens taking the last two tricks.

---

What declarer did not notice is that his RHO had discarded a spade when declarer was in the process of drawings trumps. The defender admits to this and says he's going to play a low diamond. The TD is called (by dummy) and this is the 3-card minor suit ending:
TD's ruling: one trick to declarer, two to the defence. Basis of TD's ruling: finessing ♦10 is a normal line of play, so declarer only makes ♣Q.
E/W appeal: Basis of appeal: declarer claimed two tricks which were the minor suit queens, known to be winners. The defence cannot prevent him from winning these tricks. In practice ♦10 would be established (and declarer would know this to be a winner when he sees the ♦J fall, so there's a good case for 3 tricks to declarer.
Suppose you are on the AC. How do you assess this one?

---

Fascinating stuff. IMO, the laws mire the director in a trilemma:

• Is declarer's (unstated) line of play unambiguously predicated on cashing minors from the top? (3 tricks for declarer)
• In the light of unexpected developments, absent any statement to the contrary, must declarer play normally, "guessing wrong" about the placing of finessable cards? (1 trick for declarer)
• May the director try to emulate Solomon -- 2 tricks for declarer -- a seemingly more equitable -- but practically unlikely result?

IMO: It's easier to justify option 2 than option 1, in Bridge-Law; but the director should attempt to fudge it with option 3, provided the law can be interpreted to allow it and both sides accept it.

[chrism]

West expected to win 2 minor suit queens, but expected to lose a trick first to the fourteenth spade. When a non-spade comes back, he is expected to notice that it is the wrong color, and reconsider his (unstated) plan of discarding the ♦10 on it. However he is not allowed an unstated line of play that depends on finding North rather than South with the ♦J so going up with the queen is not allowed. His (imputed) statement that he expected to win two 2 minor suit queens applied to a different universe than the one he now inhabits.

TD ruling upheld; apply whatever sanction is available for meritless appeals.

[Cyberyeti]

 chrism, on 2014-June-13, 13:02, said:

West expected to win 2 minor suit queens, but expected to lose a trick first to the fourteenth spade. When a non-spade comes back, he is expected to notice that it is the wrong color, and reconsider his (unstated) plan of discarding the ♦10 on it. However he is not allowed an unstated line of play that depends on finding North rather than South with the ♦J so going up with the queen is not allowed. His (imputed) statement that he expected to win two 2 minor suit queens applied to a different universe than the one he now inhabits.

TD ruling upheld; apply whatever sanction is available for meritless appeals.

This play is so inferior that surely declarer can't be forced to take it, particularly if this is a good standard event.

If you have two plays with roughly equal odds of working, but one will get you no matchpoints if wrong half the time, the other might get you 30% or more, you are allowed to take the superior line, the other is not a reasonable line if the event is of any sort of standard. I would rule -1 if S had ♦Jx ♣x, but in this case he gets all the tricks.

[barmar]

Declarer's claim statement said that he was going to take his two queens. IMO, there's nothing "normal" about taking a finesse that wasn't stated.

[jallerton]

 barmar, on 2014-June-13, 16:58, said:

Declarer's claim statement said that he was going to take his two queens. IMO, there's nothing "normal" about taking a finesse that wasn't stated.

Declarer's claim statement was simply "two off". You can debate what this claim statement implies, but that it is all he said at the point when he claimed.

[lamford]

West has to guess whether the ending is ♦Jx ♣x with South, or ♦Jx ♣J or ♦x ♣xx with South or the actual layout, ♦x ♣Jx with South. South is known to be 5-1-3-4 or 5-1-4-3 (although declarer may well have been unaware of that). We know that South has gone wrong by pitching a spade, but people do. It is clearly a normal but inferior line to finesse the diamond. If South had Jx of diamonds and one club left, I would give declarer two tricks (but not three) and if South has Jx of diamonds and the stiff jack of clubs left, declarer is deemed to rise with the queen of diamonds and finesse the club for one trick to declarer again. All inferior percentage lines are normal and careless.

I am surprised that half the voters go for three tricks to declarer. What hope has the average TD got?

[Bbradley62]

BTW: After giving declarer the three last tricks, I'd apply a procedural penalty for his half-assed claim that subjected everyone to this drama.

[PhilKing]

Declarer claimed two tricks, so he can't finesse.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2014-June-16, 12:57, said:

Declarer claimed two tricks, so he can't finesse.

That's not what the rules say. The Law that I think you're referring to is "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". This still allows the Director to impose such a line.

[sfi]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-June-16, 09:03, said:

BTW: After giving declarer the three last tricks, I'd apply a procedural penalty for his half-assed claim that subjected everyone to this drama.

You're going to penalise declarer because he didn't notice a discard? That's pretty harsh. His claim was perfectly normal - just incorrect.

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2014-June-16, 15:57, said:

That's not what the rules say. The Law that I think you're referring to is "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". This still allows the Director to impose such a line.

The way I see it is he claimed two tricks, and in taking those two tricks he will make three. I am not saying that there is a law prohibiting losing finesses or any other unsuccessful play being imposed after a claim, but the guy is just aiming to take his top tricks.

"Doubt" is supposed to be resolved in the favour of the NOS, but there is none here.

[Bbradley62]

 sfi, on 2014-June-16, 16:23, said:

You're going to penalise declarer because he didn't notice a discard? That's pretty harsh. His claim was perfectly normal - just incorrect.

And rolling through a STOP sign is "perfectly normal", but if a cop sees you do it, you get a ticket. "I get my queens" would have been simple enough.

[barmar]

So basically, you're saying that when he claims 2 of the last 3 tricks, but doesn't state the order, it would be normal, although presumably careless/inferior, to duck a trick before taking them, even though this would kill his communication and prevent him from taking the 2 sure tricks he claimed.

[Bbradley62]

Was that directed to me? No, I said I'd give him all 3 tricks, then penalize him for his improper claim.

[lamford]

 PhilKing, on 2014-June-16, 17:48, said:

"Doubt" is supposed to be resolved in the favour of the NOS, but there is none here.

Indeed there is no doubt. Finessing and rising are both "normal" lines; therefore the declarer gets the less successful line.

[Bbradley62]

Finesse is not normal if his stated intention is to take 2 tricks.

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-June-16, 18:54, said:

Was that directed to me? No, I said I'd give him all 3 tricks, then penalize him for his improper claim.

I'm strongly in favor of procedural penalties where appropriate. I don't think we directors give them often enough. But in this case, I don't think a PP is justified, unless he's been strongly taken to task for this kind of thing before.

[sfi]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-June-16, 18:03, said:

And rolling through a STOP sign is "perfectly normal", but if a cop sees you do it, you get a ticket. "I get my queens" would have been simple enough.

He did claim the two queens. From the original post: "with the 2 minor suit queens taking the last two tricks"

And rolling through a stop sign is hardly normal, in the sense that it's not proper behaviour.

[blackshoe]

 sfi, on 2014-June-17, 00:52, said:

And rolling through a stop sign is hardly normal, in the sense that it's not proper behaviour.

It's certainly careless.