How would you judge this?

[ahri]

Contract is played in spades and 6 tricks before end declarer has:

♠AK3

♥AKQ

 

A defender has

♠765

♦AKQ

 

Declarer plays AK♠ and claims all the tricks.

On the question if he was aware that there is trump outside still, he answers honestly that he did not.

 

It's quite obvious he can play hearts first to give only one trick, but how would you judge this one because of his careless play and claim?

[jdonn]

Declarer loses the last four tricks. He thought all the cards were equally good, so he might as easily play the trump next as the hearts.

[crazy4hoop]

This is true.

[Mbodell]

Declarer loses the last four tricks. He thought all the cards were equally good, so he might as easily play the trump next as the hearts.

I agree 100%. And even if he did know there was a trump out, he might not have known if it was above or below the 3 (although I admit it would be hard to imagine that 652 would play the 5 and 6 under the A and K).

 

I had a slightly more complicated version of this at a regional where with 5 to go the hand was:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq75h2dc&w=shakqd7c&e=sjhdcj98&s=shd8c543]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Diamonds were trump and west had just played the last high diamond and claimed with no stated line (likely thought she'd pulled all the trump, but maybe thought her trump was boss).

 

The question was how many tricks should NS get, 1 or 2 more? If West runs hearts she'll get 3 more tricks. If she plays the diamond and pitches the club from dummy she'll get 3 more tricks. If she plays the diamond and pitches a club from dummy she'll get only 2 more tricks (assuming North doesn't throw the Q of spades). She claimed she knew the J of spades was not good and that the clubs were all good and that it would be irrational to keep the J of spades. I'm not sure we should trust her, but even if she knows about the dummy, if she thinks her hand is good then the dummy doesn't matter and anything could be pitched. If you really want to hurt her you could argue it should go diamond, club, and then J of spades from dummy for only 1 more trick.

 

Long story short the director ruled 2 tricks.

[jdonn]

She was wrong, director was right. How could she claim that any pitch is irrational from a hand that she supposedly can't reach?

[ahri]

And even if he did know there was a trump out, he might not have known if it was above or below the 3 (although I admit it would be hard to imagine that 652 would play the 5 and 6 under the A and K).

At actual board it were 7 and 8 and it was not AKQ & AKQ but I simplified it :)

[crazy4hoop]

The only way keeping the spade can be irrational is if she does not think her hand is good and when she loses the diamond trick she knows she has to keep dummy's clubs as the spade is no good. But as the others have already stated, if she thinks her hand is good, there is no irrational pitch from the unreachable (again, already stated by others) dummy, so why not throw a club from the "immaterial" dummy?

[EricK]

The only way keeping the spade can be irrational is if she does not think her hand is good and when she loses the diamond trick she knows she has to keep dummy's clubs as the spade is no good. But as the others have already stated, if she thinks her hand is good, there is no irrational pitch from the unreachable (again, already stated by others) dummy, so why not throw a club from the "immaterial" dummy?

What happens if the defenders' hands are swapped so that if the hand were to be played out, she would see that her trump wasn't good before making the discard from dummy?

[jdonn]

The only way keeping the spade can be irrational is if she does not think her hand is good and when she loses the diamond trick she knows she has to keep dummy's clubs as the spade is no good.  But as the others have already stated, if she thinks her hand is good, there is no irrational pitch from the unreachable (again, already stated by others) dummy, so why not throw a club from the "immaterial" dummy?

What happens if the defenders' hands are swapped so that if the hand were to be played out, she would see that her trump wasn't good before making the discard from dummy?

It's helpful to see the play up to that point, but I would probably rule if she didn't know her trump wasn't good, she doesn't know her spade isn't good.

[JoAnneM]

On the first hand, I would not award 4 tricks. If you think the trumps are in you are not going to pull another round of trumps, so that is an irrational play. Normally after a declined claim you are not allowed to pull trumps, has this changed?

 

So, AK, Qtrumped, Atrumped, KQ = Declarer loses 2 tricks.

 

 

On the 2nd hand I would also award 2 tricks.

[fromageGB]

So, AK, Qtrumped,  Atrumped, KQ        = Declarer loses 2 tricks.     

I don't understand this.

If you agree it is not rational to play the last spade before the hearts (I don't) then ♠AK, ♥A ruffed, ♦A ruffed, ♥KQ and declarer loses 1 trick.

 

I also would not award 4 tricks, as any of the last 4 cards are equally likely if they are all thought to be bosses. A quarter of the time it is 4 tricks, three quarters is 1 trick, so I would award a loss of one and three quarters tricks.

 

Maybe that's why I am not a director.

[crazy4hoop]

This is from ACBLscore Tournament Mode Tech Files:

CLAIMS MADE WITH AN OUTSTANDING TRUMP (LAW 70C)

 

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play

not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an

alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.

 

With Spades as trumps, the lead is in the dummy and declarer says

dummy's good".

 

Dummy:

CASE 1: Spades A CASE 2: Spades 2 CASE 3: Spades Q

Hearts A Hearts A Hearts A

Diamonds - Diamonds - Diamonds -

Clubs A Clubs A Clubs A

 

Defender holds: Spades K

Hearts -

Diamonds AK

Clubs -

 

In Case 1, no one should have any problem awarding exactly one trick

to the defenders. Declarer may not play the ace of trumps to extract

any trump of which he was likely unaware and the defender will be able

to rough one of declarer's outside aces.

 

In Case 2, should the Director require that declarer lead the deuce of

spades first? The argument put forth to support this position says

that since declarer is convinced that all of dummy's cards are good,

the Director should shuffle them and randomly pick the deuce. This

line of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are

equal. However it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically

different and any value that the deuce has as a trump would be wasted

by leading it. Remember also that the Laws dealing with claims keep

referring to "normal" lines of play, which embraces the careless and

inferior play but not the irrational. The only rational purpose in

playing the deuce is to execute some sort of squeeze, which clearly

does not apply in example 2 above. The play of the deuce is not

rational: it can do not good, and may be harmful.

 

What then if dummy's trump is the 4? or the 6? or the 8? Where should

one draw the line?

 

LAWS.061 (PAGE 15)

__________________

 

Consider the third case. Would it be normal for declarer to play the

queen of spades? If declarer plays out the hand, confident that his

outside cards are good, he might well play the queen as a "safety

check" for any overlooked trump. It is certainly not abnormal for a

declarer to play a "high" trump in these situations. Thus, the

declarer in Case 3 should be forced to play the queen since it is a

normal play consistent with his statement of claim. This is true even

though we would NOT ALLOW declarer to play the queen if it were to his

advantage to do so.

 

Obviously, Directors will seldom be faced with the extremes presented

in 1 and 2 above; most situations will fall somewhere in between.

However, this principle can be applied whenever the Director rules

that declarer's card is such that it would be normal to use it to draw

trumps. Some cards are inherently high in rank: the ace, obviously,

but also the king and the queen. Lesser cards may also fall into this

category because of the way that play has gone prior to the claim.

Declarer may falsely believe that a card has been established because

he thinks he has forced out all of the higher ones, for instance. The

important point to recognize is that there is a difference between a

card that is thought good because of rank and one that is thought good

by virtue of being the last remaining.

 

Whenever there is an attempt to establish guidelines, there is a risk

that some will use them in lieu of common sense or even of law.

Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to form a basis for

consistency. With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines

concerning claims:

 

A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible

for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the

top down).

 

B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was

likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

 

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

with a "high" trump.

 

D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps

to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.

(Directions - July/October, 1992)

[crazy4hoop]

I just realized those three cases are hard to read:

 

Case 1: Dummy has ♠A, ♥A, and ♣A

 

Case 2: Dummy has ♠2, ♥A, and ♣A

 

Case 3: Dummy has ♠Q, ♥A, and ♣A

 

Hope that helps B)

[JoAnneM]

In case one it is stated that the AK of spades are played and then declarer claims. I agree that one trick should be awarded to the defenders. I made a mistake in assigning the tricks in my earlier post.

[xcurt]

    A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible

        for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the

        top down).

 

    B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was

        likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

 

    C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

        with a "high" trump.

 

    D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps

        to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.

                                        (Directions - July/October, 1992)

 

Hmm I was never aware that the ACBL published clarification on this point. I'm glad to read it. I was once on a committee where delcarer was in a slam with something like 9 trumps to the AKQ, and not needing any ruffs to get up to 12 tricks. Declarer cashed a high trump with everyone following, cashed a second one with one opponent following, faced her hand, and (as far as I could tell from the testimony) the opponents immediately screamed for the director before she could state a line and wanted to make their baby trump. I argued and we ruled that even if declarer didn't have an exact count on the trump suit and hadn't intended to state a line involving drawing the last trump it was illogical to cash running side suits before cashing the remaining high trump. I discussed this one later with someone who is a pretty good player and he wanted strongly to award the opponents a trick with their small trump. Your point C seems to imply we made the correct ruling.

 

It sounds like this stuff is only available if you have ACBLScore. How come this material isn't published to a wider audience?

[EricK]

I see no reason why we should be at all lenient to somebody who makes a claim without stating a line of play. Even if dummy's good, it really saves no time to say "dummy's good" rather than "3 spades, 2 hearts then a club" (or "trumps from the top then everything else is high" or any other simple statement of what tricks you are claiming)

[JoAnneM]

The diagram in the original post could be a little misleading. The declarer did not claim with six tricks left to play. He played the AK of trumps and then claimed. This shows the director that he thought all trumps were pulled. That is why I would not make the next trick a trump trick, and would award the defenders one trick. Of course this is strictly a judgment call on the part of the director, and also could be based on his experience with that player.

 

Also the first paragraph of Law 70 states:

"The Director’s Goal in adjudicating the result of a board on which a claim has been contested is to restore equity — to determine the result which would most probably have been obtained had there been no claim. However, with that guideline in mind, the Director shall resolve any doubtful points against the claimer."

 

For that reason I am really against windfall scores being given to opponents that skew the results for the rest of the field. This cannot always be avoided, and I have been on the receiving end, but I didn't feel good about it.

[peachy]

The diagram in the original post could be a little misleading. The declarer did not claim with six tricks left to play. He played the AK of trumps and then claimed. This shows the director that he thought all trumps were pulled. That is why I would not make the next trick a trump trick, and would award the defenders one trick. Of course this is strictly a judgment call on the part of the director, and also could be based on his experience with that player.

 

Also the first paragraph of Law 70 states:

"The Director’s Goal in adjudicating the result of a board on which a claim has been contested is to restore equity — to determine the result which would most probably have been obtained had there been no claim. However, with that guideline in mind, the Director shall resolve any doubtful points against the claimer."

 

For that reason I am really against windfall scores being given to opponents that skew the results for the rest of the field. This cannot always be avoided, and I have been on the receiving end, but I didn't feel good about it.

Windfalls come to you in many other forms like bad declarer play, bad defense, bad bidding, or revoke, by opponents. This is just one of them: bad claim.

 

The TD follows the rules and resolves doubtful points in favor of the NOS. I find it doubtful whether declarer knew the trumps were not all drawn or that the last trump was not a winner. Feelings aside, I find this an easy ruling. Agree it is a windfall to the NOS, but that is a core concept of the game: errors cost and the benefit goes to the opponents.

[JoAnneM]

Your post seems to imply that declarer made a bad claim on purpose. I would never, as a director, approach a table with that in mind. If that was my attitude I would quit directing.

[ahri]

In the original board outstanding trumps were 8 and 7 (i just wrote AK3 AKQ to make it easier to see). Declarer thought he pulled all trumps for sure (he was asked that in the moment of claiming and he admitted that he thought he pulled all the trumps).