defensive claim

[Cascade]

♠ kx

♥ kx

♦ x

 

♠ axx

♥ -

♦ ax

 

Lho leads a spade and while declarer is thinking rho shows two hearts claiming one more trick.

 

Declarer objects as if the spade is won in dummy and the heart king cashed Lho is subject to a memory squeeze.

 

Under what conditions would you allow her to discard correctly?

 

Declarer opened 1nt and showed up with five diamonds and two clubs. He had pitched two diamonds and a heart on the run of clubs.

 

Declarer needs Lho to have not seen or miscounted

[axman]

♠ kx

♥ kx

♦ x

 

♠ axx

♥ -

♦ ax

 

Lho leads a spade and while declarer is thinking rho shows two hearts claiming one more trick.

 

Declarer objects as if the spade is won in dummy and the heart king cashed Lho is subject to a memory squeeze.

 

Under what conditions would you allow her to discard correctly?

 

Declarer opened 1nt and showed up with five diamonds and two clubs. He had pitched two diamonds and a heart on the run of clubs.

 

Declarer needs Lho to have not seen or miscounted

 

Given the conditions Wayne is wheeled into the operating room and a new brain is installed. What else is there to do when N holds the HK2 and E the H34?

[Cascade]

Not play a second heart

[mrdct]

Any chance you could show us what LHO & RHO held in the end position, and perhaps indicate what trumps are?

[AlexJonson]

While simple players dislike declarer claims, almost all declarers dislike defender claims.

 

Bluejak inter alia will tell you that claiming has added n years to their life. I doubt it personally, but even Nige1 might resist criticism that he claimed too late when he was a defender.

[Cascade]

Ok. More details

 

Declarer's spades were atx

 

Lho had s qjx dqx

 

Rho had sxxx h9x

 

It was no trumps

[blackshoe]

Let's see if I've got this right: [hv=pc=n&s=sat2hda2c&w=sqj3hdq3c&n=sk7hk3d4c&e=s654h92dc]399|300[/hv]

 

Notrumps. LHO leads a spade. RHO claims a heart trick, before a card is played from dummy.

 

RHO ain't getting his heart trick. As for West, well,

Law70D2: The director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

But East's claim doesn't depend on any play of West's, so that's out. I suppose we need to ask West and South, separately and where they can't hear the other's answer, what his count is on the hand, and how he intends to play his remaining cards.

[iviehoff]

I suppose we need to ask West and South, separately and where they can't hear the other's answer, what his count is on the hand, and how he intends to play his remaining cards.

I don't really think that sort of evidence is the kind of thing we should ask for or consider in ruling on a claim. Since it is asked for after the fact of the claim and objection, it will be badly infected.

 

West is guarding diamonds and spades. Even though he is discarding after South, it seems to be merely careless/inferior to miscount and discard the wrong one. In general, miscounting without obvious show-outs comes into that category. No tricks for EW.

[blackshoe]

Maybe it will be "infected" and maybe it won't. It seems to me though that failing to gather pertinent evidence on the grounds that it will(?) be "infected" is not good TD practice.

 

I do agree with your "no tricks for EW", unless something someone says convinces me otherwise.

[lamford]

But East's claim doesn't depend on any play of West's, so that's out. I suppose we need to ask West and South, separately and where they can't hear the other's answer, what his count is on the hand, and how he intends to play his remaining cards.

East's claim of one heart trick is not correct, as declarer is not obliged to lose a heart. So, whether East's claim of one trick is successful does depend on West's choice of plays. I would award all the tricks to the declarer both here, and, for the avoidance of doubt, when either the spades, or the East-West hands (and the claimant), are transposed.

[blackshoe]

You could just as well argue, Paul, that East's claim of one heart trick not being valid, West's hand is irrelevant*, and EW get no tricks. But I don't think that's a very good argument.

 

* Because the claim of a heart trick depends only on the cards in East's hand.

[Cascade]

Let's see if I've got this right: [hv=pc=n&s=sat2hda2c&w=sqj3hdq3c&n=sk7hk3d4c&e=s654h92dc]399|300[/hv]

 

Notrumps. LHO leads a spade. RHO claims a heart trick, before a card is played from dummy.

 

RHO ain't getting his heart trick. As for West, well,

But East's claim doesn't depend on any play of West's, so that's out. I suppose we need to ask West and South, separately and where they can't hear the other's answer, what his count is on the hand, and how he intends to play his remaining cards.

 

Thanks.

 

That is pretty much it. All of the key cards are correct.

 

I was posting from my mobile phone and didn't seem to get an option to insert a hand.

[JanM]

I didn't read the OP as saying that East claimed a heart trick, just that East told declarer hearts weren't splitting and therefore the defenders were entitled to another trick. That trick might be in any of the three suits in which people still had cards. As I understand the question asked, it is whether that claim should be allowed when it depends on West discarding correctly.

 

I am 99.9% certain that if this happens in the Bermuda Bowl in 8 weeks, declarer will concede a trick and the players will move on to the next hand. Should the same be the case in a game involving less expert players? I don't know. But I don't think it's right to rule against East on the basis that he's not getting a heart trick because declarer can just as well lose a spade or diamond trick.

[iviehoff]

I am 99.9% certain that if this happens in the Bermuda Bowl in 8 weeks, declarer will concede a trick and the players will move on to the next hand. Should the same be the case in a game involving less expert players?

Declarer can agree to concede a trick and move on whether the play is expert or moderate. But we are considering what should happen if instead of making an agreement a ruling is asked for. What players routinely agree with their opponents in relation to claims, especially at expert level, and what would happen if instead they asked for a ruling, are not the same thing at all.

[Cascade]

I didn't read the OP as saying that East claimed a heart trick, just that East told declarer hearts weren't splitting and therefore the defenders were entitled to another trick. That trick might be in any of the three suits in which people still had cards. As I understand the question asked, it is whether that claim should be allowed when it depends on West discarding correctly.

 

I am 99.9% certain that if this happens in the Bermuda Bowl in 8 weeks, declarer will concede a trick and the players will move on to the next hand. Should the same be the case in a game involving less expert players? I don't know. But I don't think it's right to rule against East on the basis that he's not getting a heart trick because declarer can just as well lose a spade or diamond trick.

 

East didn't explicitly claim a heart trick. He showed his two hearts. When spades were led to the current trick and he had not played. In my opinion he was clearly suggesting play be curtailed.

 

A. Claim Defined

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of

tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he

suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he

demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his

cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

 

Initially I agreed saying there is no squeeze. Then I thought more deeply and realized that while there was no legitimate squeeze there was a memory squeeze on my LHO and she may not have followed my discards.

 

Given that RHO claimed the law says:

 

2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends

on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*

plays.

 

“normal” includes play that would be

careless or inferior for the class of player involved

 

It seems here that RHO claiming a trick depends on his partner discarding correctly. So the judgement now is whether discarding incorrectly has crossed the threshold from being normal.

 

It seems to me that LHO needs to give pretty compelling evidence that she has not miscounted. Here I might believe someone who could tell me what spots had been played would discard correctly but I am not sure where the boundary is between normal but careless and not normal. Accepting the play as not normal would clearly depend on the class of player.

 

Ironically later in the event my partner pitched the wrong card at trick twelve. If the director is going to automatically rule in favour of the claimer in this memory squeeze type situation it seems that my partner's misdefense was my error - I should have claimed a trick earlier. This doesn't seem reasonable to me.

[bluejak]

No doubt I have misunderstood something.

 

East claimed one trick.

 

There is a normal line by which he will not get one trick, ie if his partner makes the wrong discard, which is careless.

 

So N/S get all the tricks.

 

What have I missed?

[iviehoff]

What have I missed?

Nothing apart from irrelevancies.

[alphatango]

1. Suppose West immediately objected to the claim (more precisely, his partner's concession of a trick), not on the basis that they were entitled to a different number of tricks, but solely to avoid being required to make a "careless or inferior" play. Is that permitted? Would we now allow defenders their trick?

 

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, hypothetical follow-up: Suppose, in an alternative position, defender East claims all the tricks, but the claim is flawed; defenders can still get all the tricks, but it depends on West's choice of plays (from among normal lines). Can West still immediately object in order to save his side's trick(s)?

[iviehoff]

Suppose West immediately objected to the claim (more precisely, his partner's concession of a trick), not on the basis that they were entitled to a different number of tricks, but solely to avoid being required to make a "careless or inferior" play. Is that permitted? Would we now allow defenders their trick?

If West immediately objected to his partner's defensive claim, what we must do is apply that very bizarre law 68B2 that applies whenever partner immediately objects to a defensive claim for less than all of the remaining tricks. It may surprise you. It reads as follows:

 

"Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it."

 

For avoidance of doubt, any claim for less than all of the remaining tricks is deemed to be a concession (68B1).

[alphatango]

Sorry, my previous post was written quickly and imprecisely. I was indeed aware of that law, and what I meant to ask was:

 

1. In the current scenario, are we satisfied that the UI that partner has two hearts does not suggest one play over another (and so, assuming West gets the subsequent play right, the defenders make one trick)? (The situation may be different if East had exposed all of his cards, of course.)

2. In the hypothetical scenario where the claim is for all the tricks, no concession has taken place, so 68B2 cannot apply. Does West have any way to avoid a "careless or inferior" play being imposed upon him in the adjudication of the claim?

[iviehoff]

1. There's two issues (a) what West already knows, which we don't have enough info about the hand to know and (b) whether knowing it he would in practice get the discard right. I think we would need to test this by organising a poll. Give people the bidding and play to date, assume that South wins a spade on table, cashes the heart and discards a spade (diamond makes it too easy), see how often polled Wests get the discard right.

2. No. Your question perfectly exposes what seems to be a misunderstanding underlying the devising of this law. The law only makes sense if one presumes the lawmakers assumed that the claimant's partner would be objecting to the loss of specific conceded tricks that he expects to win, and at times that may be the case. But the law means it is often advantageous to you to object to partner's claim simply if think partner's claim is wrong, because usually you can expect to win more tricks playing it out than you will get under an adjudication, since usually the constraints of the UI laws on what you can do will be less constraining than the impact of the "careless" criterion. Why you should be able to take advantage of this precisely when partner claims for less than all of the tricks, but not when he claims for all of the tricks, defies logic. But it is a law so infrequently applied that I doubt the lawmakers can get it high enough up their list of priorities to fix. And then there is the risk they will write something even worse.

[lamford]

1. There's two issues (a) what West already knows, which we don't have enough info about the hand to know and (b) whether knowing it he would in practice get the discard right. I think we would need to test this by organising a poll. Give people the bidding and play to date, assume that South wins a spade on table, cashes the heart and discards a spade (diamond makes it too easy), see how often polled Wests get the discard right.

Too elaborate in my view. Fine to poll players to decide what is an LA, but the above is not the way to judge what is careless. The players will be straining to work out declarer's shape, and even if they have a complete count of the hand, they can still be careless. I would say that ALL discards which are plausible are treated as careless. If, however, West had S 432 and D Q3 left, then I would say that it would be irrational to keep a spade which cannot be a guard. But if West had S 532 and D Q3 left, he would be deemed to discard wrongly. If declarer had shown out of a suit, then I would allow the defender to remember that, but I would not accept the argument that he had a "complete count of the hand". To have miscounted is careless. How many times have you kept the thirteenth card in a suit? I certainly have.

[barmar]

I've seen decent players (my partners, unfortunately) discard incorrectly because they didn't notice someone showing out of a suit or that the suit had been played 3 times and their card was the useless 13th.