Another Claim

[Chris3875]

We were down to the last 3 cards - Declarer held a small spade and AQ clubs - dummy had a small (top) spade and 2 small clubs. Declarer (E) claimed saying "top spade and 2 top clubs" but I (N) held Kxx clubs. Declarer knew I had the King of clubs and what she intended was to play the small spade to the winner in dummy then play the clubs through me, but she didn't say that. If she had played the clubs first she is down 1 or 2 (depending on which club she plays).

 

The Director said she would have played the spade first (because she mentioned the spades first) - so allowed the claim.

 

I was disgruntled.

[pran]

We were down to the last 3 cards - Declarer held a small spade and AQ clubs - dummy had a small (top) spade and 2 small clubs. Declarer (E) claimed saying "top spade and 2 top clubs" but I (N) held Kxx clubs. Declarer knew I had the King of clubs and what she intended was to play the small spade to the winner in dummy then play the clubs through me, but she didn't say that. If she had played the clubs first she is down 1 or 2 (depending on which club she plays).

 

The Director said she would have played the spade first (because she mentioned the spades first) - so allowed the claim.

 

I was disgruntled.

Spade first is correct, but her statement "2 top clubs" binds her to play the Ace first, giving you the last trick to your king.

 

She should have stated "finesse the King of clubs" rather than "2 top clubs".

 

Only if the situation is so obviouos that raising with the A♣ is deemed irrational (and the statement "2 top clubs" a slip of the tongue) may she have her claim.

[gordontd]

Declarer knew I had the King of clubs and what she intended was to play the small spade to the winner in dummy then play the clubs through me, but she didn't say that.

Do you mean that you knew that's what she intended, or just that's what she said she intended?

[Chris3875]

No, she didn't give any line of play - just said "top spade and clubs" but later, she asserted because she had mentioned the spade first, that it meant she intended to play the spade first.

[Trinidad]

The case boils essentially down to this.

 

If the position of the ♣K was not clear, declarer will take the first spade and is assumed to play the clubs from the top: You get the ♣K.

 

If, as you say, it was clear that you had you had the ♣K, it would be silly not to finesse for it: 3 tricks for declarer. It would be way absolutely obvious (not to mention actually in accordance with declarere's statement) that in order to take the finesse she must first cross to dummy in spades.

 

Actually the fact that she mentioned spades (x) before clubs (AQ), makes it pretty clear that declarer knew the position and intended to finesse.

 

Rik

[ggwhiz]

When I claim, I try to table my remaining cards in the order I play them as per my statement so whichever hits the table first is played next.

 

Seems reasonable that the statement here is the equivalent. You say she knew you had the club king so down 2 depending on "which club" is played first is pretty cheesy. So is the lack of a finesse unless you have reason to believe she forgot it was out.

[jeremy69]

You can choose to say, as an opponent, that you accept declarer was going to finesse the club but the statement as stands means, I think, the last trick to the other side unless perhaps the other hand had already shown out of clubs and declarer knew that.

[Pict]

I may have missed why declarer knew the position of the club King.

 

Seems critical to me.

[Phil]

The rules only allow a 'proven' finesse right? If Declarer had tried a club finesse earlier, that doesn't seem proven, unless if South had shown out or declarer had an airtight count on the distribution.

 

I might also buy a statement that North is known to have the ♣K because of such-and-such.

 

Otherwise, it appears declarer might have forgot about the ♣K and thought the AQ were high.

[Chris3875]

yeah, yeah - I know it was pretty "cheesy" of me to be cranky. However, the person making the claim is a Grand Master and I think they should follow the rules and say how they are going to play. "Top spade and clubs" was not correct as I had the King of clubs. I didn't argue with the ruling at all as I knew what she was going to do BUT I think players should state their line of play. Maybe she did forget that the King of clubs was still out - who knows.

[iviehoff]

Well it depends whether you are playing "we are grown-ups and have a gentleman's agreement not consistent with the law-book to allow each other to get away with sloppy claim statements in which we don't mouth what every decent bridge player would know" type bridge, or "we don't have that agreement and play by the book" bridge. My understanding is that a lot of top-level bridge is played with that gentleman's agreement.

 

Now I do not know whether the situation was within the scope of the normal gentleman's agreement, you don't give us enough information. But when you called the director you should have moved into playing by the book. Maybe the director was giving you an opportunity to reinstate the gentlemans agreement. If you wanted to play by the book, you could have appealed.

[Free]

Once you call the TD, the TD isn't supposed to restore any gentlemen's agreement, it's to play by the book.

 

To me it's clear: declarer said ♠ and 2 top ♣s, which means ♠, ♣A, ♣Q. Unless your partner has shown out on ♣, or the known HCP + auction make clear that you have the ♣K, the finesse should not be allowed and declarer only gets 2 tricks. Some things are learnt the hard way, this top player should learn how to claim.

[pran]

Once you call the TD, the TD isn't supposed to restore any gentlemen's agreement, it's to play by the book.

 

To me it's clear: declarer said ♠ and 2 top ♣s, which means ♠, ♣A, ♣Q. Unless your partner has shown out on ♣, or the known HCP + auction make clear that you have the ♣K, the finesse should not be allowed and declarer only gets 2 tricks. Some things are learnt the hard way, this top player should learn how to claim.

I agree except for one remark:

 

The "known HCP + auction" cannot alone make it clear that the position of the ♣K is known.

The "known HCP + auction" may be a very strong indication, but to satisfy Law 70E1 there must be no possibility of falsecarding or misbidding.

[bluejak]

There is lots of case law from various jurisdictions including examples on IBLF that say that when a player claims a spade and two top clubs he is not claiming he will play them in that order.

 

For example, if the hands were

 

AKQ

xx

-

-

 

xx

x

-

AK

 

and said "I have three spade tricks and two club tricks" it is normal to rule his claim valid, after all it is perfectly true.

 

So I do not think you can rule this case on the presumption he would play the spade first.

 

My guess is that declarer had a temporary lapse, forgot the AQ were not masters, and I would rule two tricks to the defence.

 

Ok, maybe he did, and maybe he did not, but the possibility is high enough to rule two tricks to the defence.

 

When I claim, I try to table my remaining cards in the order I play them as per my statement so whichever hits the table first is played next.

No doubt you do, but unless we have evidence this player does, how you do it is not relevant.