[blml] claim

[Ed Reppert]

On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Eric Landau wrote:

> I see where Ed is going, but I still don't see how he gets there.   
> If declarer "miscounts", doesn't that mean that he, perforce,  
> "assumes a distribution that doesn't exist"?   If he "assumes a  
> distribution that doesn't exist", must he not have either  
> "miscounted" or not counted at all?  Whatever you call it, his  
> claim depends on his having the correct count, and he doesn't.

If I know there are 6 cards out, then I know they break either 6-0,  
5-1, 4-2, or 3-3. If I then play one round, see that both defenders  
follow, and then *assume* the suit must break 4-2 or 3-3, I haven't  
miscounted the suit, I've made a wrong assumption about the  
distributions eliminated when both opponents follow to one trick.

If I think there are 5 cards out (because I've miscounted), then they  
break either 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2. If both follow to a trick, then I will  
think the only possible distributions are 4-1 or 3-2, which means my  
fifth card will be good, just as it would be in the first case if  
they didn't break 5-1. But the reasoning is different, and so is the  
reason for the error.