Simple claim

[bluejak]

I have found an old email with a simple claim position. I feel sure everyone will agree on this. ;) :) :)

 

I wonder if you could give a purely informal opinion on a situation that arose in our club last night.

This is not subject to any appeal - everybody is still friends, it is merely for future reference.

 

The situation involved a claim from declarer as follows:

[hv=n=st94hdc&w=shq7dc9&e=s7hd96c&s=sjh8d7c]399|300|Contract 6♠ by South.

 

Early on in the play she lost a trick to the K of spades.

 

She then came down to the three card ending shown: she was in hand.

 

She then claimed the remainder of the tricks (i.e. making her contract) without stating a line of play.[/hv] 

 

The director was not called (he being quite inexperienced, and was playing a contract of his own).

 

West stated 'I assume there are no trumps outstanding, to which East said 'Yes I have a trump'.

 

Declarer accepted that she had forgotten the outstanding small trump (her earlier play substantiated this, in the fact that she took unnecessary risks in not drawing the outstanding trump). However she certainly realised that the J,10, 9 of spades were all boss. West then said "you should now play a diamond and ruff small in dummy" - it was pointed out that declarer would still succeed since East could not overruff. West then said "Well, play a heart and ruff small in dummy and my partner can overruff". Dummy (North) then stated that he thought it was an abnormal play not to cash the J spades (following with the 4 from dummy), and then the 10 and the 9. West didn't fully accept this, but for the sake of 'peace and harmony' acceded.

 

What would your possible ruling have been in accordance with Laws 70 C and D, and in your opinion should the claim have been allowed? What would have been the possible likely outcome in a more major event should it go to appeal?

 

I suppose it comes down to what is 'normal' for the player involved. If you rate our club players on a scale of 1 (worst) - 10 (best), I would rate declarer at about '7'.

 

So, what does everyone think?

[WellSpyder]

OK, an informal opinion - no tricks to the defence. I think in practice everyone would cash SJ in this position, and then it doesn't matter what else you do. (If dummy and E each had one more trump and declarer another loser I might well accept a line of cashing SJ and then ruffing low in dummy with a possible over-ruff, but here it just seems too unlikely.)

[peachy]

It would IMO be irrational for declarer to go into any ruffing maneuvres with three high trumps. Contract making. Miscounting trumps is an error of course so there is a minuscule chance that THIS declarer might have tried to ruff something in dummy since he is capable of error, but miscounting trumps happens all the time among club players while getting into ruffing plans with three top trumps generally doesn't happen.

[blackshoe]

Making 6. Lecture to declarer about claim statements. Next time, a PP.

[wank]

1 for the defence - declarer was evidently confident no trumps were out.

 

is it irrational not to 'check for lurkers' with sufficient extra trumps? of course not, it's just careless.

[mrdct]

If declarer believes that there are no trumps outstanding, which is clearly evident from the play and the admission by delcarer, it would not be irrational to ruff a ♥, so sorry sweetheart - one more trick for the defence.

 

The rules are pretty clear that if you are missing a trump and don't know about it, you will be deemed to lose a trick to it if a trick can be lost by normal play.

[iviehoff]

The rules are pretty clear that if you are missing a trump and don't know about it, you will be deemed to lose a trick to it if a trick can be lost by normal play.

Those indeed are the rules, but the method of losing the trick still has to be "normal". Is it "normal" to ruff low when you have 3 high trumps for 3 last tricks which can obviously be taken separately?

 

If, in NT, a player claims with 3 known high cards in a suit which he can obviously take separately, and claims without a statement, we don't force him to play low in both hands to lose a trick, or force him to block the suit. I think the present case is more or less the same as that. He has 3 high cards, which he is aware of, and can obviously take separately. It really isn't "normal" to play low in this situation. That's not to say it's never happened, but that's not the same test.

[jnichols]

But claimer apparently doesn't "think" he has 3 high trumps. He thinks he has 4 high trumps. So why does he see a need to be carefull about which one he plays when?

[VixTD]

I agree that one of these last tricks should be awarded to the defence.

[jeremy69]

I think this claim discussion like many others on this forum boils down to those who want to give the claimer every chance to recover from their carelessness as against those who say "tough, you should be more careful and it is not irrational to lose a trick" Put me in the second camp. If declarer has lost count of trumps why should he now be given the benefit of the doubt as to subsequent play. To ruff a heart in dummy if you believe no trumps are out is not irrational.

[iviehoff]

I think this claim discussion like many others on this forum boils down to those who want to give the claimer every chance to recover from their carelessness as against those who say "tough, you should be more careful and it is not irrational to lose a trick" Put me in the second camp. If declarer has lost count of trumps why should he now be given the benefit of the doubt as to subsequent play. To ruff a heart in dummy if you believe no trumps are out is not irrational.

I don't recognise that as a description of the position I put forward.

 

I'm certainly against giving claimers "every chance to recover from their carelessness", and am routinely in the "trick to the defence" camp if there are careless ways of losing tricks. But at some point we get to "beyond carelessness". Even though practically every way of losing a trick has probably been observed at some time or other, for the purpose of ruling on claims we have to take a reasonable position as to what is careless and what is beyond carelessness.

 

Normally when someone claims with an obvious high card for each remaining trick, and no communication problems, we give them all the tricks regardless of whether they might have forgotten this or that, because cashing their obvious high cards is what is normal.

 

If the J109 had been a plain suit in NT, we would not have forced them to crash two of the high cards and try and win the 4, because people don't normally do that, even if they think there are no relevant cards remaining in the suit.

 

Here declarer has the J109 of trumps, which now AKQ have gone are the obvious highest 3 remaining. Why should she attempt to win a trick with any other card? To my mind that's not normal, even if you think there are no trumps out and low cards will win too.

[WellSpyder]

I have found an old email with a simple claim position.  I feel sure everyone will agree on this.  ;)  :)  ;)

Perhaps we should agree never to put a claim ruling into the "simple rulings" forum since I don't think we have ever yet had one on which there has been anything approaching unanimity!

[Oof Arted]

;)

 

with jeremy loses 1 trick

 

;)

[bid_em_up]

I'm certainly against giving claimers "every chance to recover from their carelessness", and am routinely in the "trick to the defence" camp if there are careless ways of losing tricks. But at some point we get to "beyond carelessness". Even though practically every way of losing a trick has probably been observed at some time or other, for the purpose of ruling on claims we have to take a reasonable position as to what is careless and what is beyond carelessness.

To me, "beyond carelessness" would mean that is would be incomprehensible for anyone to ruff a card small.

 

While declarer certainly has no reason to ruff anything small in dummy, carelessness, via being tired, distracted, bored, not being aware of an outstanding trump, can make you do irrational (or illogical) things. While it would certainly be careless to ruff a card small in dummy thereby risking an overruff, it certainly is not inconcievable.

 

Don't ask me how I know for certain that this can occur. ;)

 

One trick to the defense.

 

Advise North that, as dummy, he cannot state a line of play for declarer.

[mink]

When thinking about what is normal, the question arises to me: If for the last 2 tricks I have ♠A2 in my hand and no ♠ in the dummy and I believe that opps are out of spades, too, is it normal to play the 2 now? - I do not think that anybody would do this in this situation, but instead all will play the A first in case due to miscounting an opp happens to still hold a spade card, no matter how confident you are about your counting.

 

If you agree with that, then you should also assume that in the claim this thread is about, declarer plays the J first.

 

Karl

[nige1]

1 for the defence - declarer was evidently confident no trumps were out. Is it irrational not to 'check for lurkers' with sufficient extra trumps?  of course not, it's just careless.

Agree. Until the law on claims is simplified (or, at least clarified), however, there will always be inconsistent rulings in even the simplest most basic cases. From the point of view of a mere player, unclear laws that can easily be clarifed and overly depend on directors' whims are unfair and unnecessarily unfair.

[bluejak]

When thinking about what is normal, the question arises to me: If for the last 2 tricks I have ♠A2 in my hand and no ♠ in the dummy and I believe that opps are out of spades, too, is it normal to play the 2 now? - I do not think that anybody would do this in this situation, but instead all will play the A first in case due to miscounting an opp happens to still hold a spade card, no matter how confident you are about your counting.

 

If you agree with that, then you should also assume that in the claim this thread is about, declarer plays the J first.

The trouble with this post is that I do not think the connection is true. If I have A2 left, and believe they are both winners, I lead the ace first.

 

But if I am ruffing with one of them and believe them both winners, then my instinct is to ruff with the two. That is the difference between leading and ruffing.

[peachy]

If declarer believes that there are no trumps outstanding, which is clearly evident from the play and the admission by delcarer, it would not be irrational to ruff a ♥, so sorry sweetheart - one more trick for the defence.

 

The rules are pretty clear that if you are missing a trump and don't know about it, you will be deemed to lose a trick to it if a trick can be lost by normal play.

Your line is not a normal line of play, IMO.