[kenberg]

With S as the dealer I can well imagine the first three calls being 2H-Pass-4H. Lots of luck. Even if we make E the dealer it might start 1C-2H-Pass-4H.

When the auction begins with aggressive preemptive action I figure getting to a small slam in the right strain is about as much as we can reasonably hope for.

Still, we could ask for a good auction against more passive opponents, just as a matter of interest.

A word to the OP, who identifies himself as a beginner. Here is a good way to start a hand. Ask yourself: If I draw trump, take my side suit winners and take my ruffs, how many tricks do I have? Here the answer is easy: Two spades, three heart ruffs, two diamonds, six clubs in hand. Hey, that's thirteen.

Another way if putting it: Before you take a finesse, check to see that there is actually some point in doing so. Many players who should know better sometimes forget to do this. Maybe including me!

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-May-12, 07:58, said:

Still, we could ask for a good auction against more passive opponents, just as a matter of interest.

My system would have East show a strong 40(54) hand with 7 controls. I think that would be enough to bid 7♣ with reasonable confidence without having to ask further. I imagine any system including a strong Roman auction sequence would produce a similar result.

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-11, 15:31, said:

I would love to know the basis of the challenge.

LAW 70C 1.2.3 and section E

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-12, 13:23, said:

LAW 70C 1.2.3 and section E

Pointing out that there are laws that govern claims is hardly going the extra mile to provide the "basis of challenge".

You can imagine the conversation at the table:

Declarer: "I claim the rest"
Defender: "I object!"
Declarer: "On what basis?"
Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"
Declarer: "Oh god, how could I have been so remiss? Of course I concede"

When interpreting these laws the director is required to assume that, where a line is unstated, declarer may make an inferior line but not one that is irrational. He is also required to consider, when there is an outstanding trump, whether it is at all likely that declarer was unaware.

So to challenge the claim you would need to establish that taking a Diamond finesse would, for that class of player, be a rational play given that he has 13 on top.

[ArtK78]

An admittedly beginner player failed to see that there are 13 tricks available without taking a finesse. That is understandable.

For anyone who is not a beginner to not be able to see it, is hard to understand. Phil, do you really fail to see that 13 tricks are trivially available on these cards without taking a finesse?

[PhilG007]

ArtK78, on 2016-May-12, 14:04, said:

An admittedly beginner player failed to see that there are 13 tricks available without taking a finesse. That is understandable.

For anyone who is not a beginner to not be able to see it, is hard to understand. Phil, do you really fail to see that 13 tricks are trivially available on these cards without taking a finesse?

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps
so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without
specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would
have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.
It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he
made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not
mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly
enforced.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-12, 13:50, said:

Pointing out that there are laws that govern claims is hardly going the extra mile to provide the "basis of challenge".

You can imagine the conversation at the table:

Declarer: "I claim the rest"
Defender: "I object!"
Declarer: "On what basis?"
Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"
Declarer: "Oh god, how could I have been so remiss? Of course I concede"

When interpreting these laws the director is required to assume that, where a line is unstated, declarer may make an inferior line but not one that is irrational. He is also required to consider, when there is an outstanding trump, whether it is at all likely that declarer was unaware.

So to challenge the claim you would need to establish that taking a Diamond finesse would, for that class of player, be a rational play given that he has 13 on top.

The conversation you quoted wouldn't happen in real life When declarer made his"I claim the rest" a sensible defender would not
risk a confrontation with declarer but immediately call the TD and only then in the Director's presence state his reasons for disputing
declarer's claim.I actually saw this happen in real life as a witness.

[1eyedjack]

Law 70C 2 expressly requires the director to make a judgement over whether, absent pulling trumps, the declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trump. He might judge either way, and if he judges that it is "at all likely" that he was unaware, then he gets punished accordingly. But the laws do at least provide for the possibility that declarer was *not* (in the judgemnt of the director) "at all likely" to have miscounted trumps. Not stating that he would draw trumps is one factor that the director might take into account in considering it likely that he had forgotten.

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

If the director concludes that it was not at all likely that declarer was unaware of outstanding trumps, then whether or not his unstated line includes drawing trumps is all down to the fall-back test of whether he would be playing "irrationally" as opposed to simply "careless or inferior line".

I have no objection to pedantry, when property applied.

Your objection to the hypothetical conversation is specious. It is trivial to accommodate your objections by minor tweaking, without loss of the point being made:

Declarer: "I claim the rest"
Defender: "I object! DIRECTOR!""
Director: "On what basis?"
Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"
Director: "So be it. No need to look it up. Guilty as charged".

[sfi]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-13, 03:26, said:

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

Absolutely. If anyone who has demonstrated the basic ability to count to 13 shows the hand at trick 1 and claims without a line of play, there will be no argument at any serious tournament. I'm not sure who Hurd was playing, but I can't imagine a detailed claim statement was made on this hand - and probably nothing was said at all. There are 13 tricks, and it's obvious what his line of play would be.

Calling the director, unless you are a genuine beginner, would just get you laughed at.

[eagles123]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 02:13, said:

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps
so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without
specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would
have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.
It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he
made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not
mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly
enforced.

yeah I'm sure an international standard player would forget to pull trumps on this kind of hand

[ArtK78]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 02:13, said:

In the OP,there are trumps still in the defenders' hands. When he made his claim,declarer said nothing about drawing trumps
so could,potentially lose a trick to one of these trumps. All declarer said was "I claim all the tricks" without
specifically stating how he was going to play the hand. Had declarer said "Drawing trumps and claiming" that would
have been a different matter as with their trumps removed,the defence would have had no sensible basis to challenge the claim.
It would have been no defence for declarer to say to the TD "I was going to draw trumps" as he made no mention of that when he
made his claim. Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not
mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly
enforced.

First of all, how do you know that he did not say "pulling trumps" when he made the claim?

Second, this was not Ma and Pa Kettle at the local club. This was the USBC Team Trials. No one at this level would forget to pull trump, and no one at this level would imply that declarer would fail to pull trump.

Your post is a waste of digital ink.

[PhilG007]

ArtK78, on 2016-May-13, 06:17, said:

First of all, how do you know that he did not say "pulling trumps" when he made the claim?

Second, this was not Ma and Pa Kettle at the local club. This was the USBC Team Trials. No one at this level would forget to pull trump, and no one at this level would imply that declarer would fail to pull trump.

Your post is a waste of digital ink.

It doesn't matter whether the event was a club night or an event at the highest level,
amnesia is no respecter of status It can,and does,affect everyone.

[PhilG007]

eagles123, on 2016-May-13, 06:11, said:

yeah I'm sure an international standard player would forget to pull trumps on this kind of hand

Stranger things have happened (!) You forget that bridge players,like anyone else are frail mortals(!)

[masse24]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-12, 00:45, said:

If you are a believer in the old adage of "the queen lying over the jack" then the two way
finesse has become one way and you shouldn't have any further problems.

So . . . you're saying you believe the finesse to be the best route to all 13 tricks?

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-13, 03:26, said:

Law 70C 2 expressly requires the director to make a judgement over whether, absent pulling trumps, the declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trump. He might judge either way, and if he judges that it is "at all likely" that he was unaware, then he gets punished accordingly. But the laws do at least provide for the possibility that declarer was *not* (in the judgemnt of the director) "at all likely" to have miscounted trumps. Not stating that he would draw trumps is one factor that the director might take into account in considering it likely that he had forgotten.

I submit that it is unreasonable for a director to conclude that declarer was "at all likely" to be unaware of the outstanding trumps when he makes a claim before playing to trick 1. Likewise if there are several outstanding trumps at the point of claim.

If the director concludes that it was not at all likely that declarer was unaware of outstanding trumps, then whether or not his unstated line includes drawing trumps is all down to the fall-back test of whether he would be playing "irrationally" as opposed to simply "careless or inferior line".

I have no objection to pedantry, when property applied.

Your objection to the hypothetical conversation is specious. It is trivial to accommodate your objections by minor tweaking, without loss of the point being made:

Declarer: "I claim the rest"
Defender: "I object! DIRECTOR!""
Director: "On what basis?"
Defender: "Well, Duh! Law 70C 1,2,3 and section E"
Director: "So be it. No need to look it up. Guilty as charged".

Again,this dialogue is also hypothetical. Unless a TD has a photographic memory to remember the
whole codex of the Laws from beginning to end,he would have to look up the relevant Law and
read it to the players whilst standing at the table.
I have seen plenty of objections in my time as a player and they just don't follow the format
you've given in your post.

[PhilG007]

masse24, on 2016-May-13, 07:07, said:

So . . . you're saying you believe the finesse to be the best route to all 13 tricks?

No

[masse24]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:10, said:

No

Then why mention it? You only confuse the issue.

[PhilG007]

masse24, on 2016-May-13, 07:19, said:

Then why mention it? You only confuse the issue.

Am I not allowed to state a fact?

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:33, said:

Am I not allowed to state a fact?

What you stated was an adage and not a fact. And it is not at all relevant to the discussion at hand as even the slightest perusal of the laws would confirm.

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:44, said:

What you stated was an adage and not a fact. And it is not at all relevant to the discussion at hand as even the slightest perusal of the laws would confirm.

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?)