[aguahombre]

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-16, 14:26, said:

Is this true? The play has ceased. Declarer has stated his line. All dummy is asking is that the law be applied. Not even asking that declarer's stated line be changed - rather, insisting on it remaining.

I am a little perplexed as to how dummy might know that the literal line works when the sensible line fails.

Yeh, play has ceased; but I hope there is something somewhere which doesn't allow partner of the claimer to help him out, to to clarify anything about what HE thinks claimer was saying or trying to say.

[blackshoe]

Once the claim is made, dummy is no longer dummy, and there is no law that "requires him to keep his trap shut". I include in that Law 73, which deals with "communication".

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2011-September-16, 14:26, said:

I am a little perplexed as to how dummy might know that the literal line works when the sensible line fails.

Presumably based on East's body language?

[blackshoe]

So? Is that UI to (former) dummy?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-16, 15:11, said:

Once the claim is made, dummy is no longer dummy, and there is no law that "requires him to keep his trap shut". I include in that Law 73, which deals with "communication".

I was aware that the "dummy rights" thing was gone. I said I hope there is a Law which prevents partner helping claimer with his claim statement at the time the claim is being made. If, not, oh well.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-16, 08:41, said:

The TD should only do that (find out what declarer actually meant) if the clarification statement is ambiguous.

The ambiguity arises from the fact that the verbalised line is a very unexpected line for an expert declarer to be taking, coupled with the suggestion by East that something else may have been intended. The TD needs to adjudicate on the claim as equitably under Law 70A and apply the balance of probabilities in determining the facts under Law 85A1. In finding equity on the board, he needs to get to the bottom of what line declarer was actually intending to make.

[1eyedjack]

There is a degree of ambiguity in the claim, as it is not clear whether he would finesse the Club on the second round after the J has failed to drop on the first round.

Given that the finesse works on this hand, so he makes regardless of whether he finesses on the second or third round, perhaps it is an ambiguity which it is safe to ignore. Next time, RHO will have Jx and if he makes the same statement of claim ....

[barmar]

It's not so much ambiguous as seeming to be nonsensical. Kind of like holding ♦AKQJ and ♣A432, and claiming "I'm going to run the clubs and cash the diamond ace."

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-September-16, 10:48, said:

I don't agree that this applies to a claim. For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress, and 45C4b surely refers to the trick in progress.

I don't see that must necessarily be so. If Declarer said to dummy "Cash the Ace of Hearts and then follow that with a small spade" before anyone had played to the HA, I think he has designated what he is going to play to the next trick. And I doubt a director would let him change his mind. And if dummy possessed the SA not the HA, we might acknowledge this was an unintended designation of "Cash the A of Spades and follow that with a small heart". I know "Run the hearts" has been ruled to mean "Carry on leading hearts until I change my mind, not necessarily to the end". But then "run the hearts" was always a concept that was vague or at least conditional.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-September-16, 11:01, said:

---

is an example from Chien-Hwa Wang, with no trumps and South on lead. South leads the nine of clubs and discards the nine of diamonds from North and East is nosittej-squeezed. I have only ever seen the phrase used by him.

Standard overtaking squeeze. No jettison involved so a clearly inappropriate term.

Ok, what have I missed?

[semeai]

lamford, on 2011-September-16, 11:01, said:

<snip> is an example from Chien-Hwa Wang

Thanks

bluejak, on 2011-September-22, 18:48, said:

Standard overtaking squeeze. No jettison involved so a clearly inappropriate term.

Well, there's no jettison in nosittej, is there?

If you swap ♠A with ♠K it's a jettison squeeze (but is positional, so also swap East & West). I agree that this one seems simpler and it seems odd to name this one after the jettison squeeze. This site calls this a blocked squeeze.