The trick next to last

[Hanoi5]

North

♠

♥

♦

♣K9

 

South

♠

♥J

♦

♣7

 

South plays the ♣7 and West tanks. South says 'OK, down one'. But it turns out that only the club Queen is out and by playing the King both tricks will be declarer's, which means contract made. East claims that she'll win the club Queen if declarer finesses, so she wants down one. What is the normal play here? How do you rule? Contract made or down 2.

[blackshoe]

Made.

[Siegmund]

Sounds to me like declarer's own statement is that she believed two clubs were out and the finesse and the drop were equivalent lines of play leading to winning one trick and losing the other. I see no reason to let her choose the successful line over the unsuccessful one and am fine with -1 if clubs are trump or East's last card is a small heart and -2 otherwise.

 

Normal sometimes includes really, really bad lines of play.

 

I consider this a close parallel to the question about what to do if declarer claims all the rest with a KQ9x opposite ATxxx suit, where the only technically correct line is 100% but real-life evidence is that even very good declarers call for the wrong honour surprisingly often. Before we discussed that card combination on BLML I had been a believer in some sort of "declarer is assigned the worst of all non-dominated strategies for the rest of the play of the hand" rule to mechanically replace the normal-vs-irrational debate, but the discussion of that card combination convinced me that normal sometimes has to include plays declarer makes as a result of miscounting (or simple sloppiness) that, if he had counted correctly, would never be considered.

[pran]

Sounds to me like declarer's own statement is that she believed two clubs were out and the finesse and the drop were equivalent lines of play leading to winning one trick and losing the other. I see no reason to let her choose the successful line over the unsuccessful one and am fine with -1 if clubs are trump or East's last card is a small heart and -2 otherwise.

 

Normal sometimes includes really, really bad lines of play.

 

I consider this a close parallel to the question about what to do if declarer claims all the rest with a KQ9x opposite ATxxx suit, where the only technically correct line is 100% but real-life evidence is that even very good declarers call for the wrong honour surprisingly often. Before we discussed that card combination on BLML I had been a believer in some sort of "declarer is assigned the worst of all non-dominated strategies for the rest of the play of the hand" rule to mechanically replace the normal-vs-irrational debate, but the discussion of that card combination convinced me that normal sometimes has to include plays declarer makes as a result of miscounting (or simple sloppiness) that, if he had counted correctly, would never be considered.

 

While I tend to agree I have a (small?) problem with Declarer playing towards K9 in Dummy. Is playing the 9 from Dummy in the penultimate trick "normal" (within the definition of "normal" for Laws70&71) when LHO shows out?

[RMB1]

South plays the ♣7 and West tanks. South says 'OK, down one'. But it turns out that only the club Queen is out and by playing the King both tricks will be declarer's, which means contract made. East claims that she'll win the club Queen if declarer finesses, so she wants down one.

 

Why does East only want down one? Isn't East's other card a winner?

 

This isn't a "finesse or drop" position: West is showing out on the ♣. It is a miscounting postion: declarer thinks East has ♣Qx when he has ♣Q only.

 

For a declarer who is convinced that East has ♣Qx, playing the King or small both lead to -1, so I rule both are normal.

 

If playing small at trick 12 leads to down 2, that is what I rule.

[axman]

Made.

 

I'll point out that apparently there has been [presumptively] a claim that logically there are two clubs outstanding and supposedly W shows out where the CK is the highest club outstanding. Thereby given the presumption, when the C9 is played to the trick then dummy MUST win the last trick by force- satisfying the claim statement, if not in fact... then, at least in logic.

[nige1]

Why does East only want down one? Isn't East's other card a winner? This isn't a "finesse or drop" position: West is showing out on the ♣. It is a miscounting postion: declarer thinks East has ♣Qx when he has ♣Q only. For a declarer who is convinced that East has ♣Qx, playing the King or small both lead to -1, so I rule both are normal. If playing small at trick 12 leads to down 2, that is what I rule.

A lenient director rules contract made. A strict director rules -2. As with many laws, which director you call makes a big difference.

 

On-line, however, when declarer claims one down, defenders accept the seemingly impossible result with alacrity because If they ask declarer to play-on, declarer will make. In many cases, as here, the result would be different under face-to-face law. If all your experience is face-to-face, then, initially, this may seem peculiar and unfair. Among the advantages of the on-line rule, however, are: claims require no language/translation skills; more claims are encouraged; disputed claims are rapidly resolved; results are more consistent; and, importantly, the rule is simple enough for an ordinary player to understand.

[blackshoe]

All that says, Nigel, is that the implementation of the laws in online bridge is flawed. If you want to argue that it's the law itself that's flaw, take it to the "changing laws" forum.

[richlp]

North

♠

♥

♦

♣K9

 

South

♠

♥J

♦

♣7

 

South plays the ♣7 and West tanks. South says 'OK, down one'. But it turns out that only the club Queen is out and by playing the King both tricks will be declarer's, which means contract made. East claims that she'll win the club Queen if declarer finesses, so she wants down one. What is the normal play here? How do you rule? Contract made or down 2.

 

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the actual position and the timing of events. It sounds to me as if South claimed during the tank and before West played a card.

 

If this is not the case please disregard the rest.

 

If this is the case then I would rule the contract as made.

 

South's claim is based on the legitimate (I think) assumption that the reason for the tank is that West is thinking about what to discard. East therefore has the guarded club Queen.

 

When West eventually follows suit South would finesse the club on the assumption that the only legitimate bridge reason for the tank is deciding which club to play. When East wins the club I would rule that there was no valid bridge reason for the hesitation (only one legal card to play and nothing to think about for the following tricks) and that West could have known the hesitation would deceive declarer and adjust from down 2 to making.

 

I don't know if this is one of those cases where you give the benefit of the doubt to South or have to decide what proportion of the time South would make the correct decision and give a weighted score (assuming the jurisdiction allows that).

 

If there is a problem with my logic I would appreciate the real directors here educating me.

[blackshoe]

West isn't going to follow suit.

[Slmplicity]

Within the letter of the law I believe declarer is 2 off since the believes there is ♣Qx off. I do feel sorry for declarer and wouldn't seek a ruling as East did; if West was half awake and could be bothered to contribute either of his utterly worthless cards to the trick this would never have occurred in the first place.

[manudude03]

I'd rule made as I don't consider playing the low club normal (it is obvious there is no lie of the cards where playing the small club gains once West shows out). If any real life declarer does play low and loses to a stiff Q, he gets what he deserves for trying to show off.

[Finch]

Down two.

I've nearly had exactly this ruling in a two card end position in a grand slam.

Declarer led towards dummy's KJ, believing the last two cards were Qx in the suit, and LHO showed out. In fact his RHO had been squeezed down to singleton queen and an outside winner. He said "down one". An opponent agreed, but then said "but I was down to only the queen". Declarer was very cross with himself but scored it as down one.

 

This was obviously impossible and the TD should have been called to adjust to down two. No-one cared sufficiently.

[barmar]

I'd rule made as I don't consider playing the low club normal (it is obvious there is no lie of the cards where playing the small club gains once West shows out). If any real life declarer does play low and loses to a stiff Q, he gets what he deserves for trying to show off.

It doesn't matter whether playing low gains or not. The definition of "normal" says that it includes "careless or inferior". If you think East has Qx, playing the K and playing low are presumably equivalent. it's certainly superior to play the K, just in case you miscounted, but the Law allows for the inferior play. And the general principle is that if there's any doubt, it should be resolved against the claimer. Which basically means that if he can go wrong, he's presumed to do so.

[lamford]

<snip>If you think East has Qx, playing the K and playing low are presumably equivalent. it's certainly superior to play the K, just in case you miscounted, but the Law allows for the inferior play.<snip>

Declarer stated down one. There was no stated line of play, therefore the TD follows 71E1:

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, 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 <snip>

 

This law clearly allows declarer to play East for the queen of clubs when West will show out on the actual play of the club from South. When East is known to have the queen of clubs the only normal play is high (low can never succeed as even a beginner will realise). A similar example would be a three-card ending with Axx opposite KJx. There are three clubs out, but declarer has not been counting; he leads the ace of clubs and the person OVER the KJx shows out. The declarer, temporarily brain-dead (who knows he might think that play is anti-clockwise) concedes a trick. The concession may be cancelled, right up to the end of the Correction Period, and the declarer is allowed to take the winning finesse.

 

It is true that the specific wording of 71E1 assumes that declarer notices someone showing out, and allows a new unstated line which takes that into account - far better play than many of my club members produce, but that is the Law, and blackshoe is right, and he correctly avoids verbosity for the sake of emphasis. There is no need to adjust the score as richlp states here.

[AlexJonson]

If declarer had said 'cashing the King of clubs and conceding the last trick to the Queen of clubs', the TD would have given him the contract, although declarer would have played Bridge just as badly as in the OP.

 

Yes I know, irrelevant, but I find it interesting.

 

In the real world I might have asked declarer what he intended to play - oh no, I wouldn't, I'm not allowed to do that, I believe.

[joostb1]

I'm just wondering how anybody can make a decision with so much information missing. What's the contract and what cards did W and E hold? That's absolutely necessary information.

[lamford]

I'm just wondering how anybody can make a decision with so much information missing. What's the contract and what cards did W and E hold? That's absolutely necessary information.

I disagree. It is completely irrelevant, once we know that West will show out on the next club and therefore East has the queen.

[bluejak]

I don't know if this is one of those cases where you give the benefit of the doubt to South or have to decide what proportion of the time South would make the correct decision and give a weighted score (assuming the jurisdiction allows that).

The Laws do not permit weighted scores except where adjusted scores are given. This is a claim, and claims are decided by deciding a number of tricks, not by an adjusted score, so weighted scores [and split scores for that matter] are illegal.

 

:ph34r:

 

On-line, however, when declarer claims one down, defenders accept the seemingly impossible result with alacrity because If they ask declarer to play-on, declarer will make. ... Among the advantages of the on-line rule, however, are: ... more claims are encouraged ...

I would say the opposite: the online rules actively discourage claims which is why there are fewer online claims.

[TimG]

Last weekend, I played a KO match against a person with ~2000 ACBL masterpoints who stated that she never claims. During the match, she did indeed play out all of her cards even when they were all obvious winners. With the attitude expressed by some in this thread, I can understand her position.

[blackshoe]

It's not enough when claiming that the situation be obvious to the claimer. Claimer is required to state a clear line of play — and that is where 99% of claims fail. Frankly, IMO if people can't be bothered to follow the rules, they shouldn't be surprised when that bites them on the ass. As for the "then I won't claim, ever" solution, fine — so long as that doesn't create a slow play problem. If it does, you're gonna going to (for David :P) get bit again.

[lamford]

Frankly, IMO if people can't be bothered to follow the rules, they shouldn't be surprised when that bites them on the ass.

But all my students have been taught to claim at trick one, as either defender or declarer. And silently.

That way they get a careless or inferior line, far better than they would have managed if they had tried to think! Extra work for the TD, but that is not their problem.

[joostb1]

I disagree. It is completely irrelevant, once we know that West will show out on the next club and therefore East has the queen.

You're a lousy director if you take decisions without knowing the facts. For all we know W may have had a trump.

[lamford]

You're a lousy director if you take decisions without knowing the facts. For all we know W may have had a trump.

There is an inherent assumption in the OP that it is no-trumps, or that all trumps had gone. We would have been told if the opposite was the case. For all we know it might have been whist.

[bluejak]

The attitude of a few exceptional people does not justify a cavalier attitude to the rules and a wish to be discourteous to quite a number of people.