The trick next to last

[barmar]

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).

This has nothing to do with playing one opponent rather than the other for the queen. The point is that declarer's claim makes it clear that he thinks there are TWO clubs out, the queen and another, not just the queen. When West shows out, it's clear to declarer that East has both of these cards, and playing high and low from dummy are equivalent. Playing low in this case is inferior, but not irrational.

 

This is not unlike past discussions we've had about the case where declarer has a broken suit to run, and his claim implies that he thinks the card filling in the hole is gone. This has sparked endless debates about whether it would be irrational to play the suit from the bottom instead of the top.

[blackshoe]

Whether playing high and playing low from dummy are equivalent depends, does it not, on whether RHO's low club can beat dummy's low card (and declarer's lead)? Shall we assume that declarer "knows" it cannot? On what basis? "Benefit of the doubt" does not mean we should rule that declarer will do something stupid (stupid is way worse than careless, for my money).

[lamford]

This has nothing to do with playing one opponent rather than the other for the queen. The point is that declarer's claim makes it clear that he thinks there are TWO clubs out, the queen and another, not just the queen. When West shows out, it's clear to declarer that East has both of these cards, and playing high and low from dummy are equivalent.

You refute your own argument. Playing low always loses a trick; playing high wins both tricks when the queen is falling. The ONLY normal line when East is known to have the queen is high. By your argument, in the two card ending when East is known to have no cards in the suit, playing high would be careless or inferior; and this is not how the Law is applied. It will work when East did not show out as declarer believed, but actually has the remaining card, so you could argue that it is careless or inferior. But the Law assumes that we notice people show out, and we notice that a card has not gone. We are not assumed to count, or even be able to count. We lapse into beginner level at that moment in time; and no beginner would play low when West shows out.

[mycroft]

If there are two clubs out and East has both of them and it's trick 12, then it is irrelevant which card is played - you are getting the K, and you are not getting the 9. Either can happen on trick 12 or 13. What's inferior about playing low?

 

Now, if there are three cards out, and it might go low to the Q, exit card, west cashes trick 13, then it makes a difference.

[lamford]

If there are two clubs out and East has both of them and it's trick 12, then it is irrelevant which card is played - you are getting the K, and you are not getting the 9. Either can happen on trick 12 or 13. What's inferior about playing low?

For somebody who is clearly incapable of counting a suit, playing low is not normal; for me there would be at least a 50% chance that I have miscounted, and it can never gain to play low.

 

But, more importantly, if a claim was not permitted then I do not think someone, other than a player who was trying to be clever and show that he had counted correctly, would play low. In a three-card ending with the lead in hand, a player with AKJ would always lead, ace, king, jack in that order and see whether the queen fell. There are two possibilities - the queen has already gone, in which case it does not matter, and the queen is yet to appear, in which case the only chance is leading from the top. The lead of the jack is worse than inferior or careless - it is abnormal and irrational. Of course there will be occasions when the lead of the jack is the correct play, and those will be treated on their merits.

 

I believe that some RAs have indicated that suits will be played from the top in certain situations; this is a good rule, as it is what happens in practice.

[dburn]

The fact that some posters would give the defenders [at least one] trick encourages me to believe that even the equity merchants are to some extent supporters of Burn's 68th Law:

 

When claiming, a player must state the number of tricks his side intends to take and the order in which his side proposes to play its cards in order to take those tricks. Any cards not explicitly covered in the claimer's statement shall be deemed played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer (moreover, if the claimer is a defender, his partner shall be deemed to play as badly as possible).

 

As I have said elsewhere (and often), it is not for some Director or Committee to take over the play or defence of a hand just because someone has claimed. Although most Directors and some Committees do not play very well, most of them can usually work out the right thing to do in a three-card ending when they can see all the cards. More frequently than you would think, however, the player at the table cannot.

 

Here, though, Burn claim laws would operate in favour of declarer, who would simply call for the king of clubs rather than make any claim statement or claim. As lamford rightly says, to do anything else would be stupid, and Burn claim laws are designed to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity. However, if they insist on still being stupid, they pay the maximum penalty in accordance with a well-known principle in software development: you can make it foolproof, but you can't make it damn-fool-proof.

[barmar]

Whether playing high and playing low from dummy are equivalent depends, does it not, on whether RHO's low club can beat dummy's low card (and declarer's lead)? Shall we assume that declarer "knows" it cannot? On what basis? "Benefit of the doubt" does not mean we should rule that declarer will do something stupid (stupid is way worse than careless, for my money).

I don't see how the rank of RHO's imagined second card makes a difference. Whether he has QT or Q3, you each get one trick whichever card you play from dummy.

 

Unless you think RHO might dump the Q under the K with either holding. With QT he can do that, since the T will still win; with Q3 he's throwing away a trick.

 

The law that says that doubtful claims should be resolved against the claimer implies to me that claimer is allowed to be careless, but not opponents.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, fuzzy thinking on my part. Never mind.