[Lanor Fow]

I think Pran means, when it's unclear, don't claim (play it out)

[barmar]

I think he meant to play the hand normally INSTEAD of claiming. There's a law saying you shouldn't prolong play to disconcert an opponent. But if the reason you're playing out is because the claim would be difficult to explain, that's not a violation.

However, none of this applies on this hand. Declarer claimed because he thought he had the rest in top tricks -- he simply miscounted. That's why he didn't think a detailed claim statement was needed -- he thought he could play them in almost any order (blocking the diamond suit would presumably be considered irrational for this class of player).

Which points the way to resolving the disputed claim. His implicit claim statement was that he's going to just play off all his winners, in some order that allows proper transportation. Since he didn't claim that he would try for the squeeze, we don't restrict "normal" to just the plays and discards that would have this result. He also never said anything about trying to drop the ♠QJ -- he didn't think he needed to, so he wouldn't be careful to hold on to dummy's 10.

Basically, if you thought you had the rest, the normal lines include many where you don't discover your mistake until it's too late to do anything about it.

[blackshoe]

I think he's saying "if the line isn't obvious to everybody, don't claim". The problem with that, of course, is that you can't know if it's obvious to everybody until you claim. And then there's "if it's obvious to everybody, I don't need to state a line of play".

[barmar]

In practice, it's not usually a problem. Unless you're playing in the late rounds of a national/international championship, a squeeze is too complicated to claim on. In a club game, I wouldn't try to claim on anything fancier than a high cross-ruff or a marked end-play.

If the claim statement includes more than one "if", it's probably not worth claiming.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-November-20, 09:08, said:

Or just play it out. That is usually the fastest when the claim isn't obvious to everybody.

blackshoe, on 2012-November-20, 09:52, said:

I think he's saying "if the line isn't obvious to everybody, don't claim". The problem with that, of course, is that you can't know if it's obvious to everybody until you claim. And then there's "if it's obvious to everybody, I don't need to state a line of play".

I thought it might be good to find out what Pran meant from him, since he referred to "the claim" ---which doesn't exist if he meant "don't claim".

The part I made bold in your post is so clearly the case that I have a hard time believing Pran would have said what he said if he meant what you say he meant.

[blackshoe]

I don't speak for Sven, and I didn't presume to say what he meant. I said what I thought he meant. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. But it seems a number of others agree with me.

[barmar]

Yeah, my interpretation would have been right if he'd said "if the claim wouldn't be obvious to everybody" rather than "isn't obvious" -- the latter implies that the claim was made and the opponents expressed confusion. However, many people don't always this form (is it the subjunctive?) when necessary, and I made an assumption that it was what he meant.

[TimG]

gnasher, on 2012-November-20, 03:11, said:

There are three lines that lead to going down:
- Cash all five diamonds, without noticing his mistake, throwing dummy's spade losers. Since he plans to throw all of dummy's major-suit losers, it's a normal line to start by throwing the spades.
- Realise his mistake early, and decide to take two spade finesses rather than play the squeeze. That is judging that a hand like QJxx QJx xx Kxxx is more likely than a hand like ?xxxx QJ10x xx Kx.
- Realise his mistake early, start playing the squeeze line, and then change his mind when a spade honour drops offside.

I don't think one should be allowed to change a claim based upon a realization. I would take a "claim without statement" as meaning "I'm going to cash top tricks". If he is a trick short, the "realization" might well take place at trick 13. So, I don't think your 2nd and 3rd options should be considered possible lines as a result of the claim.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-20, 09:21, said:

Huh? Doesn't play stop at the claim point? Or did you mean Declarer just putting cards down in succession to illustrate his claim?

No, I meant play it out instead of claiming unless the claim is obvious.
Of course I also favour declarer putting down his cards quickly in succession to illustrate the sequence in which he intends to play them.

But my experience is that once a player doesn't immediately understand (and accept) a claim the explanation takes more time than it would have taken to just complete the play without a claim.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-November-20, 15:47, said:

No, I meant play it out instead of claiming unless the claim is obvious.

Declarer saw 12 top tricks - the claim was completely obvious to him.

I think many of these posts suggest bridge is played in a computer-like environment. Declarers who play out a hand which is all top tricks don't think about irrelevancies, like keeping menaces for the fourteenth trick.

So if he won in hand at trick one, playing five diamonds now and discarding two spades before he even turns his brain back on is normal. If he won in dummy at trick one, playing off the ace-king of spades and not bothering to notice the ten was good is a normal line.

One off is routine for a non-thinking declarer, and so one off is routine for a ruling.

[Sjoerds]

The only question here is: "is it 6NT-1 or -2?" The double finish in spades still has some 25% and that is nice for an hopeless contract.

[aguahombre]

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-23, 10:32, said:

The only question here is: "is it 6NT-1 or -2?" The double finish in spades still has some 25% and that is nice for an hopeless contract.

Lamford agreed with you, much earlier. Gnasher mentions another line which would lead to down 2. However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

[Sjoerds]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-23, 11:21, said:

Lamford agreed with you, much earlier. Gnasher mentions another line which would lead to down 2. However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

Fair enough for me

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-23, 11:21, said:

However, Gnasher (later) and others point out why down two shouldn't be ruled --- declarer thought he was going to bang down twelve tricks; we don't get to impose a plan on him which requires early thinking, no matter how inferior it might be. We just assign the worst result from his playing out winners. Two of the cashing sequences are successful, and the others lead to down one.

If cashing out winners accidentally led to making it - say dummy had to follow and could not discard more than one spade - then I would still rule that declarer went down. All we have to do is decide on the worst normal line. The Laws do not say a normal line only cashing winners; they say, or imply, a normal line of any type. And while declarer cannot usually take a successful finesse, he can still be deemed to take an unsuccessful finesse if it is a normal line. I still think down two is correct, and normal. I would expect to go 2 down, losing a spade and a club, if I played it out; now many people think my declarer play is not normal, but it is usually only careless.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-November-20, 17:52, said:

Declarers who play out a hand which is all top tricks don't think about irrelevancies, like keeping menaces for the fourteenth trick.

Why do you say this? I do this quite a lot, actually; usually about 5 or 6 tricks from the end I realise that I have enough winners. Then I claim.

[blackshoe]

If you have (or think you have) all top tricks, they're all winners. Are you sure you and David are talking about the same situation?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-24, 07:57, said:

If you have (or think you have) all top tricks, they're all winners. Are you sure you and David are talking about the same situation?

I think so, if David was talking about having all top tricks but not realising you do.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-November-23, 17:48, said:

The Laws do not say a normal line only cashing winners; they say, or imply, a normal line of any type.

What they say (or imply) is a normal line of play consistent with the claim statement. If the claim was that you had all winners, then I think all the normal lines involve cashing those winners, the only "intelligence" we typically allow is not stupidly blocking suits.

If some orders of cashing the winners get lucky (e.g. dropping a doubleton honor) while others don't, the claim will be adjudicated with the less favorable result because the benefit of the doubt goes to the NOS.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-November-24, 22:36, said:

What they say (or imply) is a normal line of play consistent with the claim statement.

If the claim statement is absent as here, or nonsensical, then it is effectively ignored, and the worst normal line is "imposed". If the TD thinks the claim statement means "cashing the twelve winners in some sensible order", then there is no line of play consistent with the claim statement. And we are told he claimed without statement, so any line of play is consistent with that. And just because the claim statement involves, or implies, cashing winners, does not mean that one has to follow it when it breaks down.

[blackshoe]

Bottom line: if you do not state a line of play, and it is possible to lose, you lose. Stating a line of play at least increases the chance that you won't lose. So if you're going to claim, state a line. If you can't see a clear line, don't claim. I'm not saying don't claim if there's an "if" in your line, though as someone said upthread, if there's more than one "if" you probably shouldn't. But you have to be able to articulate a clear line, and doing so to yourself before you actually claim ought to be a part of the process. If you get lazy, expect to lose.