Bad claim question

[mr1303]

[hv=n=shjdajc&w=shdkcq10&e=s10hdxxc&s=shdxcjx]399|300|[/hv]

 

Spades are trumps. Lead is in the dummy (North hand).

 

South is declarer, and says "Dummy is high"

 

Both East and West simultaneously call the director at this point. How do you rule?

[duschek]

Two tricks for declarer. I do not belong to the school which says that in this case it is perfectly normal for declarer to play the ♦J before the ♦A when he claims that dummy is high.

[pran]

Two tricks for declarer. I do not belong to the school which says that in this case it is perfectly normal for declarer to play the ♦J before the ♦A when he claims that dummy is high.

Sustained.

 

Sven

[gordontd]

How do you get to two tricks?

 

If you don't make declarer lead the DJ first, then the defenders only get one trick.

 

If you do make declarer lead the DJ first, then they get all three.

 

Or have I missed something?

 

[edited a few minutes later] Oops, yes, now I see - I was thinking in terms of tricks to the defenders, you were both talking about tricks to declarer.

[Trinidad]

How do you get to two tricks?

 

If you don't make declarer lead the DJ first, then the defenders only get one trick.

 

If you do make declarer lead the DJ first, then they get all three.

 

Or have I missed something?

Maybe you missed that he wrote: "Two tricks for declarer."

 

(Or maybe I missed that he edited his post.)

 

Rik

[Jlall]

0 tricks for declarer, if he thinks all the cards in dummy are high he can play any of them equally, so I would force him to play the DJ from dummy.

[karlson]

0 tricks for declarer, if he thinks all the cards in dummy are high he can play any of them equally, so I would force him to play the DJ from dummy.

What, really? If I have AKQxxx in dummy and xxx in my hand and cash one round and then say dummy's high, there's no way anyone would force me to not cash them from the top.

 

I admit that in this case it sounds like declarer didn't know about the DK (maybe more context would make it clear), but I think playing DA then DJ is clearly irrational (which is the relevant wording if I recall correctly), so I'd allow him to luck out and take the rest.

[mrdct]

I'm with Justin on this one. If declarer believes dummy is high it would not be illogical to play ♦J before the ♦A. I sometimes play equal honours from the bottom myself; particularly if dummy has gone for a smoke as it's not as far to reach. The fact that ♦Kxx are missing means that declared must believe in his mind the the A & J are equal. If it had only been stiff ♦K missing, then obviously declarer's intent would be to play ♦A first.

[Jlall]

What, really? If I have AKQxxx in dummy and xxx in my hand and cash one round and then say dummy's high, there's no way anyone would force me to not cash them from the top.

I agree with this, but that is a totally different scenario.

 

As mrdct said if there was only stiff K of diamonds out and someone claimed dummy was high I would give it to them. That is the analagous situation to what you said.

 

Here it is clear that declarer just forgot the DK was out and thought the ace and jack were high. In that case why would he play the ace rather than the jack?

[blackshoe]

You know, I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone play the Jack before the Ace in this scenario. Natheless, the laws tell us to give the benefit of the doubt to claimer's opponents, so that's what I'd do.

 

As for "forcing", sorry, I left my thumbscrews in my other suit.

[karlson]

In that case why would he play the ace rather than the jack?

Just because even someone who's been playing bridge for 15 minutes realizes that to take all the tricks, playing the J before the A can never be better.

[Jlall]

In that case why would he play the ace rather than the jack?

Just because even someone who's been playing bridge for 15 minutes realizes that to take all the tricks, playing the J before the A can never be better.

Yes, and playing the J is never worse than playing the A if they are equal. Thus they can play either.

 

I guess your point is that people should always get credit for cashing the highest card in a suit first and that doing anything else is illogical.

 

My point is that if both plays are equal, neither is illogical. The fact that you may have forgotten something so you should cash the ace first is not a good enough reason to get credit for playing the highest card first; you are claiming which implies you know the layout without a doubt.

 

FWIW I thought this was a well covered situation and that my view was mainstream. If I am wrong I am eager to learn so.

[TylerE]

I'd say for a player at your level your statement might be accurate. For most players, playing from the top is beyond automatic. Spliting too many hairs on this kind of ruling is the kind of thing that drives some club players to never ever claim, and to get all out of joint when someone claims against them.

[karlson]

FWIW I thought this was a well covered situation and that my view was mainstream. If I am wrong I am eager to learn so.

Well since blackshoe seems to agree with you on that, I instafold.

 

Still just seems more fair to me to always let them cash the highest cards first.

[blackshoe]

I said I'd give the benefit of the doubt to claimer's opponents. If we're talking about beginners, or people who don't think beyond "top down", there would be no doubt they'd play top down. Since there was no indication in the OP that the players concerned were of that ilk, I'd say there's doubt. :P

[mr1303]

NS have been playing for 20+ years (but couldn't really be described as experts).

 

As to the way the play had gone, South had taken a couple of diamond finesses (he was initially missing both diamond honours), having lost the first round to the queen, and the second round holding. However, he would have no particular reason to expect the king to fall on the next round.

[Trinidad]

When a claim is doubtful, in The Netherlands TDs are instructed that tricks are by default cashed from the top and that discards (and ruffs) are by default done with the lowest card.

 

I am very happy with this instruction. It means that there is uniformity in the rulings and in over 99% of the cases this is what would have happened at the table if the deal would have been played out.

 

Rik

[Grazy69]

Rik

The above TD instructions are excellent and remove ambiguity in rulings of this type.

Out of interest do you have a link to "instructions to TD's" in your country ?

It would make a good read and compare with the UK's "White Book"

Thx

[mr1303]

TD at our table ruled 3 tricks to the defence, deciding that since declarer had thought dummy was high, he could play the jack of diamonds off the dummy.

 

It does appear that some proper guidance is needed on claims of this type, since opinion seems to differ depending on who you ask.

[pran]

TD at our table ruled 3 tricks to the defence, deciding that since declarer had thought dummy was high, he could play the jack of diamonds off the dummy.

 

It does appear that some proper guidance is needed on claims of this type, since opinion seems to differ depending on who you ask.

Is this ruling really consistent with your White book?

 

I believed EBU had the (natural?) rule that when adjudicating claims without a complete claim statement then (subject to the claim statement given) each individual suit should be played top down, but the suits should be played in the order (if any) that is most successful for opponents.

 

regards Sven

[barmar]

Law 70E2 gives the RA the option to specify the order in which cards are deemed to be played if this isn't stated explicitly in the claim statement.

 

I can't imagine any RA implementing that option and NOT specifying it as from the top. IMHO, it's unduly wishy-washy for the Laws to delegate this to the RA. It seems silly to make players play cards in a suit in any other order if they're intending to take the maximum number of tricks. Do we really want to force them to play from the bottom, just to punish them in silly cases like this one?

[Trinidad]

Rik

The above TD instructions are excellent and remove ambiguity in rulings of this type.

Out of interest do you have a link to "instructions to TD's" in your country ?

It would make a good read and compare with the UK's "White Book"

Thx

There is no such thing as a (one) book with TD instructions in The Netherlands (like a white book). There are, of course, the TD course books which come with instructions. But the one thing that works very well is that the Dutch bridge league (NBB) sends a magazine ('WEKOwijzer') out to all TDs four times per year.

 

The magazine is typically filled with:

Appeals write ups

Law News (New laws or regulations)

Questions and Answers

Specific articles that can focus on particular aspects of directing

 

The NBB uses this magazine to insure uniformity in director's decisions. Since everything is written in a 'loose' and down to earth style, this magazine is pretty well read which means that it serves its purpose. So when one of the big shots in the NBB writes a column about how to deal with claims, a major part of the TDs will read that and will act accordingly. So this serves as a TD instruction. When the same big shot writes a regulation, it is written as legal stuff, and no one will read it.

 

Unfortunately, these magazines aren't indexed. This means that a new TD who has to deal with a claim cannot do a quick lookup. But there are thoughts to get something in that direction.

 

The issues from 1999 can be found on the NBB webpages: link to WEKOwijzers.

 

Of course, they are written in Dutch, but click on an issue and you might get a feeling of what the WEKOwijzer does, why this approach works and what the drawbacks are.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

The relevant part of the White Book says:

 

70.5 Top down?

A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

 

Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the

jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might

be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void

it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a

singleton six.

 

So it is not an inviolable rule that all suits are played from the top down, and in this case it seems the White Book would support a ruling that declarer is deemed to play the jack first.

[bluejak]

TD at our table ruled 3 tricks to the defence, deciding that since declarer had thought dummy was high, he could play the jack of diamonds off the dummy.

 

It does appear that some proper guidance is needed on claims of this type, since opinion seems to differ depending on who you ask.

This is a judgement ruling.

 

When giving judgement rulings there will always be disparity dependent on whom you ask.

 

Law 70E2 gives the RA the option to specify the order in which cards are deemed to be played if this isn't stated explicitly in the claim statement.

 

I can't imagine any RA implementing that option and NOT specifying it as from the top. IMHO, it's unduly wishy-washy for the Laws to delegate this to the RA. It seems silly to make players play cards in a suit in any other order if they're intending to take the maximum number of tricks. Do we really want to force them to play from the bottom, just to punish them in silly cases like this one? 

No, the aim is to give fair rulings. When it is obvious what would have happened, you rule claims that way. When there are a load of winners, we always get differences of opinion, and we always get people who think their way is the only possible way and anything else is ridiculous.

 

Personally, I think AJ is close. I was interested in the 99% stated earlier: I think as the White book suggests that it depends on what the cards are. I can assure you from playing competitive bridge for over forty years that players do not play the 2 first from AK2 even if they are all winners, but they do play the 4 first sometimes from 754 if they are all winners.

 

I do not mind the various opinions on this case. But at the end of the day, I do not think these hands are completely obvious, so they are worth discussing, and I get tired with people who say that the authorities should <whatever> because we are discussing things where the authorities have not done so. It is far better to discuss them.

 

Yes, there are jurisdictions who say always top down. Personally, I think they are wrong, but would rule that way if I were directing for them.

[barmar]

I just think that this is an area where a simple rule, like the rules for revokes, would avoid unnecessary problems. The TD is only likely to be called in these "close" cases, and then the players are at the mercy of a particular TD's judgement. I don't see what's so unfair about a law that says that when a player claims all the cards in a suit are good that they're presumed to be played from the top. Claims, by their very nature, avoid the possibility of some silly actions like revokes and playing out of turn; would it be so bad that they also remove the possibility of playing a suit from the bottom and getting surprised by a misremembered spot card?

 

In close cases like this, some TDs will rule one way, other TDs will rule another way. Is THAT fair?

 

There are a number of places in the Laws where judgement calls are unavoidable. Why does this have to be one of them?