[lamford]

Dealer South, Game all, Matchpoints
2C-Pass-2D-Pass-3NT-Pass-6NT-All Pass

---

West led the queen of hearts and South, the club's equivalent of the Rueful Rabbit, won and took the spade finesse. East ducked smoothly. South now claimed stating that, as it was teams (which it was not) and he had 12 top tricks (which he did not), he was not going to repeat the spade finesse.

How do you rule?

[Gerardo]

He stated a line. The line he stated gives him 12 tricks. So, 12 tricks.

[blackshoe]

He has 12 tricks only if he plays the ♠A before the ♠J. I would do that, but will he?

It looks to me like he's counting on clubs not breaking 5-0. Unfortunately, they do.

I'd ask him what his 12 tricks are.

[mycroft]

"not repeating the spade finesse" == "never playing the SJ before the SA" However, it might not mean "playing the CT before the SA".

The question is whether he is going to notice that he doesn't have 12 tricks before he loses his opportunity to take 12 tricks, but that seems to not exist as an option. If we assume he realizes that the clubs don't run sometime before leading the fifth one (which we generally do), then all roads lead to 12 tricks unless he takes the finesse.

I can, however, see him playing the clubs before the spades, finding they don't split, and then "having to take" the finesse for contract. An interesting question, though - what does west pitch on the clubs? Diamonds are safe, but he doesn't know that. Pitching spades gives the show away, and pitching more than one heart sets up the board.

My judgement is to allow the Rabbit his claim; but it's close.

[bluejak]

If the spade finesse was working but clubs were 5-0 we would not be allowing this claim, would we, because we do not allow the spade finesse? Ok, so 12 tricks.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-21, 11:20, said:

If the spade finesse was working but clubs were 5-0 we would not be allowing this claim, would we, because we do not allow the spade finesse? Ok, so 12 tricks.

???
Law 70E1 begins: 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
In my world this means that when neither alternative has been stated we would not allow the finesse if it works and require the finesse if it fails (unless of course if the claimer can avoid playing that suit at all).

However, as Gerardo posted: He stated a line - so he is bound by that line.

We certainly agree on 12 tricks.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 09:24, said:

Dealer South, Game all, Matchpoints
2C-Pass-2D-Pass-3NT-Pass-6NT-All Pass

---

South now claimed stating that, as it was teams (which it was not) and he had 12 top tricks (which he did not), he was not going to repeat the spade finesse.

How do you rule?

The Ruefull Rabbit is my hero! The Secretary Bird should be West insisting on the application of this statement of claim while Papa is East.

In an attempt to throw away the overtrick, declarer made the contract. In fact, Mollo would have play continue under the "no spade" finesse statement and the Rabbit would win all 13 on a double squeeze.

[lamford]

pran, on 2010-December-21, 11:33, said:

???
Law 70E1 begins: 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
In my world this means that when neither alternative has been stated we would not allow the finesse if it works and require the finesse if it fails (unless of course if the claimer can avoid playing that suit at all).

However, as Gerardo posted: He stated a line - so he is bound by that line.

We certainly agree on 12 tricks.

Yes, he stated a line, by implication, and that was to make five club tricks, three hearts, two diamonds and two spades. I think when the claim breaks down, the TD "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.", and nothing in the Law prevents the TD accepting an alternative line, whether or not it was stated originally (70D1 and 70E1), if it is the only rational line. So, when the claim breaks down, because he does not have five clubs, then the only rational line remaining is the second spade finesse. The fact that RR stated he would not take it originally is irrelevant. So, I think you are all wrong.

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2010-December-21, 11:37, said:

The Ruefull Rabbit is my hero! The Secretary Bird should be West insisting on the application of this statement of claim while Papa is East.

In an attempt to throw away the overtrick, declarer made the contract. In fact, Mollo would have play continue under the "no spade" finesse statement and the Rabbit would win all 13 on a double squeeze.

And the Hog would chip in with "too clever by half, Papa; if you won the spade and returned one, the squeeze would have been broken up and declarer drifts one off. You always want to do the unusual, don't you!"

[RMB1]

This was his claim statement.

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 09:24, said:

... and he had 12 top tricks (which he did not), he was not going to repeat the spade finesse.

It is inconsistent: as the parenthetical remark points out.

We have case law that when the claim statment is inconsistent, we ignore it (all of it) and rule as if claimer had made no statement.

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 09:24, said:

How do you rule?

In the best traditions of Mr Scrooge!

I ignore the inconsistent claim statement and now I can apply Law 70E (finesse or drop) and "force" declarer to finesse in spades when the clubs don't break.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't care about the spade position. Declarer thought he had 5 club tricks so I see no reason why he shouldn't cash 3 diamonds, 2 hearts and "5" clubs, losing the last club to East, who certainly has a diamond to cash, making it (at least) one off.
This seems (i) consistent with the Laws, and (ii) consistent with how the play would actually go (which is not completely irrelevant)

[campboy]

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 12:07, said:

Yes, he stated a line, by implication, and that was to make five club tricks, three hearts, two diamonds and two spades. I think when the claim breaks down, the TD "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.", and nothing in the Law prevents the TD accepting an alternative line, whether or not it was stated originally (70D1 and 70E1), if it is the only rational line. So, when the claim breaks down, because he does not have five clubs, then the only rational line remaining is the second spade finesse. The fact that RR stated he would not take it originally is irrelevant. So, I think you are all wrong.

Well, your alternative line is certainly not the only rational line since it would not be irrational (or inconsistent with the claim statement) for his next play to be the ace of spades from dummy.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-December-21, 11:33, said:

???
Law 70E1 begins: 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
In my world this means that when neither alternative has been stated we would not allow the finesse if it works and require the finesse if it fails (unless of course if the claimer can avoid playing that suit at all).

Yes, but we were told he was not finessing. So an alternative has been stated. So the bit you quote is irrelevant.

pran, on 2010-December-21, 11:33, said:

However, as Gerardo posted: He stated a line - so he is bound by that line.

Exactly.

[bixby]

Great case. I rule against declarer.

Let's start with the following variation: in fact, West has the ♠K, and, after trick two, declarer says, "I've got two tricks in, and now I'll take five club tricks, three diamonds, and one more heart for eleven, and then since I won't need to repeat the spade finesse to make the contract and this is IMPs, I'll just take the ♠A and not repeat the spade finesse; you can have the last trick."

When the defenders point out the unfavorable club split, we all know that declarer would say that "of course" after the ♣A revealed the bad break he would reconsider and take the spade finesse after all. And I think many directors would allow it, on the ground that declarer would reconsider when his stated line proved impossible to follow. So I don't think we can say that declarer is totally bound by his decision not to repeat the spade finesse.

Now go back to the real case. Declarer didn't say in what order he would take his tricks, so I think we have to assume that his next play would be to start the clubs, at which point he would realize that he didn't have five club tricks (as his claim assumed), and that his best play by far is to repeat the spade finesse (the bad club split only makes it more likely to be on). If we would allow declarer to depart from his stated line of play in favor of something better when the stated line becomes impossible due to a surprising bad break, I think we have to assume that declarer would make the same departure in the face of impossibility when it cuts against him.

So while I'm not against claimers getting unaccountably lucky (and this case does have a wonderful Mollovian taste to it), I think this declarer has to go down.

[Phil]

I'm trying to decide if this claim is similar to one I had several weeks ago: Claim in 7C

It seems declarer gets the worst of both worlds, just like in the other thread. As Bixby states, clearly its likely that declarer would take a 2nd spade finesse once clubs are discovered to be 5-0 and cannot capitalize on dropping the spade K offside. The claim statement about "cash the ♠A" is unfortunate, but the claim statement was predicated on clubs splitting and on not dropping the spade King offside doubleton.

[blackshoe]

bixby, on 2010-December-21, 19:47, said:

If we would allow declarer to depart from his stated line of play in favor of something better when the stated line becomes impossible due to a surprising bad break, I think we have to assume that declarer would make the same departure in the face of impossibility when it cuts against him.

I don't think we have to assume anything. We have to adjudicate the result as equitably as possible to both sides, giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers (Law 70A). So we examine the possible lines consistent with his clarification statement. Since he didn't say in which order he would play them, we get to choose in which possible orders he might play them, absent those that are not "normal". Once we figure out the possible orders, and the possible outcomes, we choose the one which best meets the criteria of Law 70A.

In this case I agree that 6NT-1 seems to best fit the criteria of the law.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 09:24, said:

Dealer South, Game all, Matchpoints
2C-Pass-2D-Pass-3NT-Pass-6NT-All Pass
West led the queen of hearts and South, the club's equivalent of the Rueful Rabbit, won and took the spade finesse. East ducked smoothly. South now claimed stating that, as it was teams (which it was not) and he had 12 top tricks (which he did not), he was not going to repeat the spade finesse.
How do you rule?

---

Agree with Frances. Assume RR complies with his claim: playing ♥A ♠Q ♥K ♦AKQ ♣AKQJ8; and losing the last 3 tricks. RR may not take a second ♠ finesse, even if he changes his mind, because that would violate his claim statement.

[blackshoe]

I don't think that ruling is "as equitable as possible to both sides".

[pran]

lamford, on 2010-December-21, 09:24, said:

Dealer South, Game all, Matchpoints
2C-Pass-2D-Pass-3NT-Pass-6NT-All Pass

---

West led the queen of hearts and South, the club's equivalent of the Rueful Rabbit, won and took the spade finesse. East ducked smoothly. South now claimed stating that, as it was teams (which it was not) and he had 12 top tricks (which he did not), he was not going to repeat the spade finesse.

How do you rule?

nige1, on 2010-December-21, 20:37, said:

Agree with Frances. Assume RR complies with his claim: playing ♥A ♠Q ♥K ♦AKQ ♣AKQJ8; and losing the last 3 tricks. RR may not take a second ♠ finesse, even if he changes his mind, because that would violate his claim statement.

Frankly, from what has been stated and the apparent level of the player I would as Director judge that this player intended to cash the ♠Ace in the third trick and then return to his hand for a total of 12 tricks.

The only doubtful question is then whether he would notice the ♠King dropping under the Ace and cash his Jack in trick four.

[iviehoff]

This is like a recent case we had. The law explicitly provides that people can make decisions on the basis of discovering that people don't follow suit. Declarer will cash the CA and discover his claim is faulty. He will change his line of play in consequence.

Someone said declarer will cash the SA before the CA? We don't know that. We must assume he will cash the CA first.

One down.