What is careless?

[jdaming]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s87hdc&w=shdt9c&e=shd8c2&s=shjdc8]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Contract is 4♥ West is on lead. Declarer is North. Before west can lead North claims 1 of the last 2 tricks. Saying something about knowing there are no more trumps out.

 

I (dummy) call the director on that it is not logical that declarer could have lost a trick. The only way is if he would have pitched his good club under the ♦. I understand that declarer probably didn't know his club was good and should have played it out but I really just want to get a good grasp of what is illogical and what is careless.

[iviehoff]

but I really just want to get a good grasp of what is illogical and what is careless.

I don't think a perfect grasp of where the border lies is available. It is a matter of judgment. Cases like this are a perfect illustration. I predict that unanimity will not exist on this one.

 

On the one hand, it can't ever gain to throw the club at trick 12 when you have a master trump by its side. Moreover everyone bar the rawest novice knows this. So some people will tell you that this is a quite clear example of an irrational play.

 

On the other hand, if you are so convinced that the club is a loser that you are willing to claim for one trick only, you may as well save everyone's time by throwing the club at trick 12, so your hand is then visibly high. And people do sometimes do such things. Rather than a complicated claim statement with ifs and buts, play out your (believed) losers, so that your subsequent claim is of the undisputed "my hand is high" variety. So some people will tell you that this is quite within the realm of observed carelessness.

 

Take your pick.

[Phil]

Don't you think your partner's statement "I will take one trick" indicates that he forgot the ♣8 was high? Strangely enough if partner made no statement, then the 'careless' clause could apply.

 

Correcting a claim as dummy seems to reach beyond 'correcting an irregularity' in L42, and I'm not sure I would look favorably on this matter as the director, but I will defer to others on this.

[jdaming]

Don't you think your partner's statement "I will take one trick" indicates that he forgot the ♣8 was high?

I completely agree that he forgot the ♣8 was high. I however insist that if the hand was played out with any semblance of logic then what partner thought wouldn't have mattered and he would have "lucked" into taking both tricks. To me the logic to take your winner on trick 12 is roughly equivalent to the logic required to play a suit from the top. Especially when at trick 12 he is the last seat where he can see that if he pitches underneath the trick he will obviously lose it (not like second seat where you could for some reason be slightly unsure).

[blackshoe]

Dummy's objection to the concession has nothing to do with attempting to correct an irregularity. Once a claim is made, play ceases. Once play ceases, dummy is no longer dummy. Aside from that, Law 68D says, in part

if the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.

So you (even if you're dummy) call the director, who applies law 70. Since he claimed his trump trick, though, Law 70 is irrelevant - we have to apply Law 71. If it is normal to drop the club on the diamond lead, then the concession stands. If it is not normal, then declarer gets both tricks. Normal includes careless, but not irrational. Seems to me it's irrational to pitch the club, so I'd give declarer both tricks.

[Echognome]

I think it's completely a judgment call. My judgment says that pitching the club on the diamond is careless, not irrational. The reasoning is declarer's statement that he thought he would only get one trick, thus conceding the club. When I concede the club, it's somewhat irrelevant to me whether I concede it at trick 12 or 13 when I'm careless. It doesn't seem irrational to me to concede the club at trick 12 when I think it's a loser anyway.

[jdaming]

Dummy's objection to the concession has nothing to do with attempting to correct an irregularity. Once a claim is made, play ceases. Once play ceases, dummy is no longer dummy. Aside from that, Law 68D says, in part

if the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies.

So you (even if you're dummy) call the director

Thanks for confirming this too. I thought I had read this, but my RHO nearly smacked me saying the whole "you can't do anything you're dummy mantra" and by the time director got to the table we were more concerned with the ruling than correcting her.

[blackshoe]

If someone tried to tell me "you can't do anything, you're dummy" I'd just say "well, I've already done it, so I guess we'll have to let the director sort it out". Then I would make sure the director is aware of my opponent's objections.

[mrdct]

I recon that if south is careless enough to not realise that his ♣8 is high, he will be careless enough to pitch it on the ♦10 at trick 12 and only win the last trick with his trump.

 

Poor technique? Yes.

No-win play? Yes.

Careless? Yes.

Irrational? No.

 

Referring to askoxford.com:

careless

 

  • adjective 1 not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or mistakes. 2 (careless of/about) not concerned or worried about. 3 showing no interest or effort; casual.

 

irrational

 

  • adjective not logical or reasonable.

In this case, pitching his "known" losing ♣8 and then taking the last trick with the master trump certainly lacks attention and thought to avoiding harm or mistakes, but you couldn't say it's not logical or reasonable as if the player truly believes that the ♣8 is a loser, there is logic and reason to not seeking to find a line to win a trick with it. As a previous poster has noted, it is not unusual to see players (particularly in lower-standard competitions) try to develop an end position where one hand is high before claiming to avoid prolonged analysis of what's getting pitched on what and how communication will be managed, etc.

[jdonn]

Someone pitches a loser as the last play at trick 12 so that his trick 13 claim with the high trump will be clear? Is that what you are saying? Even if such a person exists we know it is not the actual declarer because he actually tried to claim before trick 12, so we know he wouldn't have reasoned that way.

[jeremy69]

Someone has no idea the C8 is good and concedes a trick. This maybe, as others have said, a judgement call, but the majority mood of this forum is to find a reason in such situations as to why we should give declarer the trick back that he didn't know he had.

I agree with

 

Poor technique? Yes.

No-win play? Yes.

Careless? Yes.

Irrational? No.

 

and would more happily err on the side of not giving tricks to players who are so keen to give them away. I don't want to stop everyone claiming but I do think that if you are inaccurate you should lose out by it rather than people falling over themselves to know what was in your mind when you did whatever it was that was so stupid.

[mrdct]

Someone pitches a loser as the last play at trick 12 so that his trick 13 claim with the high trump will be clear? Is that what you are saying? Even if such a person exists we know it is not the actual declarer because he actually tried to claim before trick 12, so we know he wouldn't have reasoned that way.

In a nutshell, yes. The only way EW will score one of the remaining two tricks is if the TD and/or appeals committee determine that in the absence of the claim it would be careless, but not irrational, for declarer to pitch a loser as the last play at trick 12 so that his trick 13 claim will be with the high trump.

 

I agree that the vast majority of competent players would indeed ruff the ♦10 and put their "losing" ♣8 on the table on the off chance that they've missed a discard or weren't following the pips properly. To not take that precautionary line in the two-card ending would certainly be careless, but you couldn't call it irrational to be conceding a known losing trick.

 

The test here is not what you or I or any other competent player would do. Nor is the test what we think this particularly person would do. The test is would it be careless but not irrational to save the trump for trick 13 when you are in a mindset of believing that your other card is a guaranteed loser.

 

It's distorting the facts somewhat, but when a person truly believes they have an unavoidable loser they could just have easily made a claim statement such as:

 

"all I've got is the top trump, so one for you and one for me"; or

"my club is a loser, so I'll just take my top trump at the end".

 

When people have lost track of the pips and don't know what's high or, as in this case, firmly believe that a winner is actually a loser, they have been known to do careless things in the end-game. We have all observed careless plays in end-positions based on misapprehensions of what's high or not and I dare say that very few of us would be entirely innocent of not making such careless plays at some point of our careers.

[crazy4hoop]

It seems irrational to me for one to save the master trump for trick 13 instead of winning it at trick 12 to be on lead whether one knew his/her last card is good or not. I would probably argue that there is no rational purpose for discarding at trick 12 as I have yet to see somebody be endplayed at trick 13. If there is no rational purpose for a play I would have to deem that play irrational as IMO would be discarding here.

[bluejak]

I predict that unanimity will not exist on this one.

Good call.

 

My vote is for two tricks to declarer, but all the arguments have been made so there is no pointing repeating them.

[duschek]

As a previous poster has noted, it is not unusual to see players (particularly in lower-standard competitions) try to develop an end position where one hand is high before claiming to avoid prolonged analysis of what's getting pitched on what and how communication will be managed, etc.

I agree with your point in general, but I cannot see how it applies here. I really cannot see why anybody, novices included, should believe that it will be any more difficult to convince the opponents that you are definitely going to make your master trump if you play it now than if you wait until the last trick.

 

In other words, I cannot see anybody deciding to concede a lot of tricks in order to simplify to "my hand is high", when all that is high is a master trump and that is the only trick you think you are going to make. It is no simplification.

[Codo]

I agree with the 2 tricks for declarer.

 

As Josh I do not understand the logic of: Some people throw their losers to make the claim easier.

 

This is not relevant for this case, as the claimer did not do so.