A day in the life ... 7

[bluejak]

The final one from the Friday evening session.

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=s7hqt76dkj9cq8532&w=skqjt86hj83d83ckj&e=s5hak2d7654cat976&s=sa9432h954daqt2c4]399|300|Scoring: S Pairs {MP}

N: ♥ 6 2 9 J

W: ♠ K 7 5 A

S: ♦ A 3 9 4

S: ♦ 2 8 J 5

N: ♦ K 6 T ♠ 6[/hv]

 

At this point the cards left were

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=s7hqt76dkj9cq8532&w=skqjt86hj83d83ckj&e=s5hak2d7654cat976&s=sa9432h954daqt2c4]399|300|Scoring: S Pairs {MP}

N: ♥ 6 2 9 J

W: ♠ K 7 5 A

S: ♦ A 3 9 4

S: ♦ 2 8 J 5

N: ♦ K 6 T ♠ 6[/hv]

 

West claimed, saying "Drawing trumps".

 

After a pregnant silence, he said "I suppose the trumps are now four-nil".

 

What do you think?

[Cascade]

What's the contract?

[bluejak]

Whoops, sorry, some number of spades. Say 4♠.

[caissa]

1 additional trick to the defence.

 

While declarer has stated a line of play "drawing trumps", by his further remarks, he has shown that continuing to play the 4th trump is not a "normal" line of play for him - i.e. worse than careless or inferior.

[Cascade]

One trick. Two tricks seems excessive.

 

After three rounds of spades either the trumps have all gone or there is one bigger out. I am not sure that knowing one bigger trump is out fits the definition of "drawing trumps".

 

I am not so sure about the idea that the comment 'I suppose trumps are 4-0 now' demonstrating that he knew about this potential problem. It could easily be that the 'pregnant silence' caused a rethink "What then could be the problem?" "Oh there are four trumps left".

 

If you think that drawing trumps means playing out all of your trumps whether they are high or not then you have to give two tricks. For me I would say 'losing a trump' not 'drawing trump' if I was intending to do that.

[peachy]

1 additional trick to the defence.

 

While declarer has stated a line of play "drawing trumps", by his further remarks, he has shown that continuing to play the 4th trump is not a "normal" line of play for him - i.e. worse than careless or inferior.

Hasty claim. Shudda, cudda tested trumps first but he has claimed and his statement was "drawing trumps" which means "exhausting all opponents' trumps and then the rest of the tricks are his". I think he is stuck with his claim and the opponents get however many tricks they get when claimer's clearly stated plan is executed, ie. he plays all his trumps, then South gets in with the trump 9 and NS cash however many high cards/clubs they have left to cash.

 

Not that it matters here when claimer did not make a new claim after he woke up, but I don't think there is a law that after opponents' inaction [neither accepted nor not accepted the claim] wakes up the declarer, he can make a new and different claim statement. Or is there?

 

However, he actually did _not make_ a new statement so the original one stands. Maybe this is too harsh? If I were the claimer, I would accept that ruling - carelessness costs.

[blackshoe]

The question is whether it would be "normal", within the meaning of the laws, for a player who puts down the trump queen expecting both opponents to follow, but sees one opponent show out of trumps, to continue a line of play that now makes no sense — unless declarer believes that his 8 is high, which apparently he does not.

 

If you decide it is "normal" for this player to continue, then he will lose the fourth trump to south's 9, and South will then get a diamond. Two tricks. If it isn't normal, then declarer will do something like play one round of trumps, two of hearts, ruff a diamond with the 8, and play A and K of clubs, the second of which South will ruff, and then declarer's last two trumps are high. He might play the clubs first, but that won't matter - the outcome is the same.

[paulg]

1 additional trick to the defence.

 

While declarer has stated a line of play "drawing trumps", by his further remarks, he has shown that continuing to play the 4th trump is not a "normal" line of play for him - i.e. worse than careless or inferior.

I agree. His subsequent comment implies that he knows that his fourth trump is lower than the defence's.

[peachy]

The question is whether it would be "normal", within the meaning of the laws, for a player who puts down the trump queen expecting both opponents to follow, but sees one opponent show out of trumps, to continue a line of play that now makes no sense — unless declarer believes that his 8 is high, which apparently he does not.

 

If you decide it is "normal" for this player to continue, then he will lose the fourth trump to south's 9, and South will then get a diamond. Two tricks. If it isn't normal, then declarer will do something like play one round of trumps, two of hearts, ruff a diamond with the 8, and play A and K of clubs, the second of which South will ruff, and then declarer's last two trumps are high. He might play the clubs first, but that won't matter - the outcome is the same.

I'm a little confused. What do you mean "continue"? Declarer didn't put down the trump queen. He claimed and accompanied the claim with a statement "drawing trumps". There was no play because play ceased when he claimed.

 

*If* it is legal for him to make a different claim statement after the pregnant pause woke him up, he *didn't make it*, even after he got some time to think. I still think he does not have the right to make a new statement and certainly does not have the right to resume playing the hand by laying down the Q of trumps when the law says play ceases. I may be a little more than a little confused though, but I still think there was one claim statement and declarer is bound to that one.

[helene_t]

While a good player should know to let the last trump sit, I can easily imagine declarer at (say) my level thinking that the 8 was high or that no diamonds were left. I would give the defenders a diamond trick.

[blackshoe]

I'm a little confused.  What do you mean "continue"?  Declarer didn't put down the trump queen.  He claimed and accompanied the claim with a statement "drawing trumps". There was no play because play ceased when he claimed.

I'm not talking about the actual play, which clearly, IAW the laws, stopped when he claimed. I'm talking about how the play would have gone had he continued playing the line of play he stated.

*If* it is legal for him to make a different claim statement after the pregnant pause woke him up, he *didn't make it*, even after he got some time to think.  I still think he does not have the right to make a new statement and certainly does not have the right to resume playing the hand by laying down the Q of trumps when the law says play ceases.  I may be a little more than a little confused though, but I still think there was one claim statement and declarer is bound to that one.

 

It is certainly legal for him to suggest an alternative line of play. The TD is not required to accept it, however. The claimer is not however inexorably bound to his original statement — but it's up to the TD to decide if an alternative line of play, whether suggested by the claimer or not, is acceptable in determining the outcome of the claim.

 

If the lawmakers wished a claimer to be bound, willy-nilly, to his stated line of play, Law 70 would tell the director to apply the stated line of play with no deviations or changes, regardless what strange information might come to light (like one defender immediately showing out of trumps) in the course thereof. The law does not, however, say that.

[OleBerg]

In Denmark, a claimer will have to play "careless" but not "senseless".

 

So if I were to judge (in Denmark), I would give the defense two tricks. The pregnant silence may have alerted declarer to the fact that there might be a problem. Declarer could have miscounted thrumphs, in which case I would not judge it to be senseless to "cash" the ♠8 before the other tricks.

 

Harsh, but 1 trick is harsh on NS, and I'd rather be harsh on the false claim, even though it is much harsher.

 

Edit: Had declarer said: "Claim, unless thrumphs are 4-0", it would have been another matter entirely.

[TimG]

Harsh, but 1 trick is harsh on NS, and I'd rather be harsh on the false claim, even though it is much harsher.

This sort of sounds like NS are due a bonus because their opponent made a sloppy claim. I don't think assigning a normal result to NS is "harsh" at all.

 

To those who think the pregnant pause woke declarer up and that this makes a difference, don't you think that playing a high trump and seeing north discard would also have woken him up?

 

(Yes, I understand there is some question whether declarer might think the 8 is high once seeing the remaining trumps are divided 4-0. The fact that the nine is outstanding might have been gleaned from the fact that the claim was not immediately accepted, but surely the 4-0 break would have been evident to declarer.)

[OleBerg]

Harsh, but 1 trick is harsh on NS, and I'd rather be harsh on the false claim, even though it is much harsher.

This sort of sounds like NS are due a bonus because their opponent made a sloppy claim. I don't think assigning a normal result to NS is "harsh" at all.

Just like you sometimes get a bonus (good result), when someone makes a sloppy play. Actually, a claim is a play. This is quite normal; your opponent ***** up, and you cash in. (Much to often the other way around for me <_< .)

 

To those who think the pregnant pause woke declarer up and that this makes a difference, don't you think that playing a high trump and seeing north discard would also have woken him up?

More likely than not, but not for certain. Enough doubt for me to favour NS.

 

(Yes, I understand there is some question whether declarer might think the 8 is high once seeing the remaining trumps are divided 4-0.  The fact that the nine is outstanding might have been gleaned from the fact that the claim was not immediately accepted, but surely the 4-0 break would have been evident to declarer.)

[Cascade]

The question is whether it would be "normal", within the meaning of the laws, for a player who puts down the trump queen expecting both opponents to follow, but sees one opponent show out of trumps, to continue a line of play that now makes no sense — unless declarer believes that his 8 is high, which apparently he does not.

 

If you decide it is "normal" for this player to continue, then he will lose the fourth trump to south's 9, and South will then get a diamond. Two tricks. If it isn't normal, then declarer will do something like play one round of trumps, two of hearts, ruff a diamond with the 8, and play A and K of clubs, the second of which South will ruff, and then declarer's last two trumps are high. He might play the clubs first, but that won't matter - the outcome is the same.

It is not completely clear to me from the facts given that at the time of the claim the declarer was aware of how many trumps were out. He may have been prompted to work this out by the delay in not accepting the claim.

 

I have experienced this sort of thing before when playing a seven card fit declarer to miscounts trumps.

[peachy]

To those who think the pregnant pause woke declarer up and that this makes a difference, don't you think that playing a high trump and seeing north discard would also have woken him up?

 

(Yes, I understand there is some question whether declarer might think the 8 is high once seeing the remaining trumps are divided 4-0. The fact that the nine is outstanding might have been gleaned from the fact that the claim was not immediately accepted, but surely the 4-0 break would have been evident to declarer.)

Yes, it might have woken him up but possibly not if he thought all his trumps were high or if he had miscounted them. However, he did not play the hand. He did not play the trump. He claimed and as is proper, play stopped.

 

I think it is outside the case to discuss which events or happenings could have also woken him up because none of that happened. There was time for thought before *and* after he woke up, and he never made a second claim or stated an alternate line of play.

 

The consensus here seems to be that the TD is to figure out what would have happened if he had played the hand out, with TD assuming declarer to be aware of all facts, and then present to the declarer the alternate line of play. However, we know for a fact that declarer isn't aware of all facts and the TD has no way of knowing if he _would have been_ when playing the hand out instead of making a false claim. He might have thought all his trumps were high. He might have miscounted trumps. The claim itself is evidence that he had NOT considered all common possibilities in his claim. For TD to assume him to be aware that all his trumps are not high and that he has a proper count of them, if he should play the hand out, is too generous.

 

I am open to education or law quotes if anyone cares to give them.

[TimG]

However, he did not play the hand. He did not play the trump. He claimed and as is proper, play stopped.

True. But in ruling the director is instructed to consider things such as "normal play*" and what might be "irrational" which suggests to me that although play has ceased how the play might have gone is something to be considered.

 

* includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

Law 70E1 includes "unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". So, the Laws specifically allow for discovery by failure to follow suit after a claim.

 

To me, and I fully understand that there is room for disagreement here, declarer's post pause comment that trumps are 4-nil speaks to him being aware of the situation, or that he would have awoken to the situation when he cashed the first high trump. I think that if declarer had not been aware that the Nine was outstanding, he would have made no comment about trumps 4-nil after the pause because the 4-nil break would not have mattered.

[MFA]

I feel strongly that the defense should only get one more trick.

[bluejak]

It has been suggesed to me by someone else involved that the player actually said:

 

Drawing trumps

Pause

 

Unless they are 4-0

[axman]

It has been suggesed to me by someone else involved that the player actually said:

 

Drawing trumps

Pause

 

Unless they are 4-0

I'll point out that you gave the determined facts as 'after a pregnant pause he said "I suppose"...' .

 

In which case there is no doubtful point that the trumps are to be pulled forthwith.

 

Absent a demonstration as to what actually in fact happened, there are some things that can be noticed from the later alleged assertion:

 

[a] claimer did not state the condition of the trumps. hmmmm- he didn't know it.

so, just how is he to not draw trumps, since in order to find out that they don't break he must play one which he has asserted he will not do.

[c] having stated what he will not do, he has not stated what he will do

[d] <censored>

[f] iow, the pregnant part of the claim is, well, buptkiss because it settles nothing; and if anything it is an acknowledgement that claimer knows he's done something dumb.

[mycroft]

I feel a bit uncomfortable that:

 

a) declarer doesn't remember how many trump are out, or

b) won't notice that they're 4-0 when the Q is played, and

c) if 4 are out and he thinks only 3, would play 4 rounds of trump to "pull trump".

 

After 3 rounds, "all the trump are out", and while it shouldn't matter which way he takes his tricks, I am not sure that cashing the trump first instead of last is merely "careless". On the other hand, I believe there is case law on that point saying it is (but I can't remember it), so.

 

If he convinces me that he knew 4 trump were out (and the play doesn't lend me to believe a forget, not that that's the same thing), then we adjust based on SQ, showout, claim statement breaks down. Now even careless play leads to one trick (if South had 9xxx xx -- xx such that the trump coup worked, I'm not giving him that, but he doesn't) - two requires playing to lose to a known high trump. If he can't convince me, well then, pull all the trumps, cash winners starting from the left, two down, I guess. Ick.

[bluejak]

The TD concerned decided to consult with three TDs who have a top reputation for understanding rulings - and all three agreed that only one trick went to the defence. So the TD ruled that way. But I am not sure he was 100% convinced! :rolleyes:

 

Note that in England/Wales the final decision in any ruling is that of the TD who went to the table. He is required to consult but is not required to follow the advice given.

[blackshoe]

Note that in England/Wales the final decision in any ruling is that of the TD who went to the table. He is required to consult but is not required to follow the advice given.

Hm. I wonder what the position is in North America. In particular, I wonder if, in tournaments where there is a DIC and subordinate TDs, the DIC can overrule the table TD, absent an appeal. :)