[blml] Another claim with inadequate statement

[Herman De wael]

I have seen that my previous message was sent to Tim alone, as a mistake.
I suppose blml can pick up the thread when seeing my sentences quoted.

Herman De Wael
Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium
www.hdw.be

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: blml at rtflb.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 06:31 PM
Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement

 Herman wrote:

(there are 2 possible mistakes in declarer's mind)

 > 1) the forgetting of the small trump. Our correspondent did indeed 
 > say that he does not believe West had miscounted the trumps. But in 
 > that case, why is there a problem.
 
Tim:There is a problem because even if declarer is aware of the small trump 
 he hasn't counted either black suit and cannot be sure which line might 
 succeed (his RHO could have a doubleton Spade).

Precisely my point. If declarer has not miscounted trumps, then why is he claiming this way? So the statement, while we should believe it, is rather impossible.

Tim: The line I originally suggested was the first "careless" line I 
 considered consistent with declarer being aware of a small trump out.

And you are allowed to do so, but as I pointed out, that line does not sound "normal" to me. Anyway, that line falls under 2) of my 2 possibilities. It serves the discussion nothing when you reiterate the same thing again, under a wrong heading.

 Having found one such line I didn't bother looking further (and I have 
 no need to).  If you prefer we can rule that crossing to the CK is an 
 "inferior" line to cashing the S winners - it has a lower percentage 
 chance of success but will work better when South is 2xx4 so it's not 
 irrational.
 
 > 2) the imagining that C7 is high. Of course you are allowed to find 
 > that declarer is in this misapprehention. 
 
Tim: And why would finding so be any different to your deciding declarer had 
 miscounted trumps when the collective table opinion was that he hadn't?
 
Because, as I said, this smacks of "I want to rule against this person, so I'll find something that he might have thought wrongly". There is absolutely no indication that this declarer thought the clubs would bring in 4 tricks; He has more than enough spade tricks (and he knows it) to cater for that part of the claim statement (all high) to be believed.


 > But this smacks to me as 
 > "I'm not able to rule against this declarer because of A, so I'm 
 > ruling against him because of B". Tell me honestly, Tim, if there 
 > were no second trump out, and declarer claims the same way, adding at 
 > some point "yes of course you get your high trump", would you rule 
 > against him? 
 
Tim: No, but in that scenario declarer's statement is typical of "cashing 
 winners from hand - ruff when you like" - there's no complexity in the 
 play no possible entry problem, no possible 4th trick for the defence.
 
And this statement (I take 6 of 7 tricks, all high) is exactly the same one. So here too, there is no reason to attribute to declarer a line in which he plays the C7 to be high.

No Tim, this line of yours is not a normal one. So if you insist on believing the TD that declarer was aware of a small trump being out, you must restrict yourself to lines in which declarer goes to the table twice in order to extract that small trump.

Herman.