Leaderboard

Does no one read law 70A before dealing with a contested claim? In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. Everyone is trying to construct the most absurd possibilities where the defender will win the maximum amount of tricks even if that play would never ever take place in real play. That is very far from adjucating the result as equitable as possible for both sides.

Law 99 - Prohibition against opening 1NT with a 5 card major

For those talking about leading hearts from "dummy": North is declarer. I had failed to appreciate the nuances of declarer stating he cashes the CK implying he knows that will draw the last trump. Nonetheless, my understanding is that when one claims "the rest are mine", the order of the remaining cards should be irrelevant or obvious. Here it is neither since the hearts aren't good and, even if they were, clubs require an unblock or the hearts must be played first. (I recall an infamous ruling made after the hand where an expert declarer was denied a grand slam for failing to mention an unblock.) North has made a claim which is careless in multiple respects and I simply think it is too much, given the laws about "normal lines including careless lines" and "doubtful points are resolved against the claimer" to allow him to luck his way out of his mistake(s) in this case. Lamford makes a valid point re. declarer might well have known there's a heart left - but we are given no evidence to suggest as much. Hence my suggestion that if declarer had even hinted he was playing hearts specifically, I would award him the rest. ahydra

It would seem not, otherwise there is no discussion as you and many others say. Continuing in clubs before cashing the hearts, if you consider that as merely careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

It doesn't matter whether North is expert, his claim makes it clear he not going to play as an expert on this hand.

I don't buy that. Declarer specifically stated he was playing the top trump, which shows me that he thinks there is exactly one trump outstanding.

Is there a rules question in there somewhere?

Following the claim statement, it's clear he is drawing the last trump and that he knows it's the last trump. IMO it would be irrational to then play another trump whether or not he unblocks the 10. The only thing left is to play the H9, which he would then see the 10 and ruff. I'm presuming he would know the diamonds are not good, so he will win the last three tricks in hand. The claim may be poorly worded and it may be incomplete, but I would award the rest of the tricks to declarer no matter their experience and ability.

Pity the poor OP. He has a difficult decision to make, and seeks advice. What does he get? A series of posts pointing out that the posters would never have this problem, because they would have opened, or (as in the last post) a home-grown method that makes little sense: if you need AKQxxx to make a natural call after passing, having partner open a strong NT and see an overcall, you're going to be waiting an awfully long time to make that call. As it happens, I would have opened in first seat, but so what? The OP doesn't use a weak 2D, and in that he has a great deal of company. I'd venture to suggest that the weak 2D is played by a minority of good partnerships. That's not, btw, an endorsement of Flannery, but the point is that most decent players in the world could find themselves in this situation. As for what to do: if I am playing imps I am definitely bidding 3N. If partner has a spade stopper, I'm happy to play game, even though it comes with no guarantees, and I am willing to push to 4D if partner can only muster a 4C call. 4D is not forcing here: it is unlikely, to the point of implausibility, that I offered 3N as a contract with game force values and a stiff or short spade, so partner will let me play 4D. At mps, the equations are different, especially when vulnerable (when vulnerable, the odds favour relatively low percentage games. At white, they don't but NV undertricks aren't much of a concern. 3N -2 NV is not a big deal at imps, if the alternative was, say, 4D -1. But at mps, 4D-1 is sometimes a LOT better than 3N-2). This is a soft hand, in terms of honour cards, so I am tempted to swing low, and just lebensohl my way to 3D. As for transfer lebensohl, I do play that a transfer to a major is invitational or better, but I don't play that way in a minor, since 5m is a long way off. So I'd bid, with my partnership versions of transfer lebensohl (or reubensohl), 3C. At imps, it would be useful to be able to bid 3C transfer and then 3N. That should clearly suggest doubt, else one would have bid 3N immediately....as a passed hand one cannot be interested in slam. However, I doubt that any but the most experienced, detail-oriented partnerships have discussed this. Since I am not throwing that sequence at a partner without prior discussion, I bid 3N. At mps, as noted, I settle for 3D anyway.

Win in hand, unblock the spades, cross to the heart A, pitch the club on the spade K. Back to hand with a diamond, and low heart towards the jack. It is unlikely anyone is void in diamonds, or has a stiff in spades. If someone ruffs the third spade, I will play for the trump Queen to drop. This won't work if east has ruffed the spade and had 7 clubs, and west can overruff the 9. The remaining losing cases, other than unexpected pointed suit splits, are east holding Qx in trump and 7 clubs or holding Qx in trump and 4 diamonds (however, if he has this, then he has almost surely ruffed a spade already) or West holding Qx in trump and 4 diamonds and giving partner a ruff. None of those holdings seem to me to outweigh the chance of a 4-1 trump break, now that clubs appear to be 2=6 or 1=7. As for 3-2 hearts, I am safe if west has the Q, as he rates to do, and when east has Qx, my line still makes most of the time, whereas playing an early heart finesse, before pitching the club, will always fail on that holding.

A declarer with good sense would trump a heart with the T, lead a trump to his hand, then close his eyes and ask an opponent to pick a card to lead next. A defender with good sense would like the idea of declarer first playing two rounds of trump.

How is this a hard problem? As stated above, 2D or 2S is OK. I definitely prefer 2D, in case partner is 5-4 in majors.