shevek Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 Declarer on lead had ♥J972 left and claimed. An opponent had ♥10. Declarer admitted she thought all trumps were gone.Is she presumed to play them from the top?If no, what if the opponent's trump were ♥3? Apologies since I'm sure this has been asked and answered many times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 I believe she's presumed to play them from the top. I think there was a WBFLC minute on it, but I'm too lazy to go look for it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 No, I don’t think there is. The WBFLC have said they permit authorities to say they are played from the top. I have been watching how people play such suits for some time. Some people always play from the top, but not many. Most people play solid looking suits from the top. But I do not believe that a large majority play broken suits from the top. For example, with AKQ632 players play A then K then Q then anything. I prefer the EBU approach of using judgement. The actual case is interesting. With J9xx I believe most people would play the J first, though not necessarily the 9 second. With 9732 a lot of people will just grab any old card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 No, I don’t think there is. The WBFLC have said they permit authorities to say they are played from the top. <snip> I prefer the EBU approach of using judgement.The Laws give the RA the power under 70E2. What did the EBU decide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphatango Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 For the record, in Australia (presumably the jurisdiction involved in the OP): In adjudicating disputed claims involving an unstated line of play the followingguidelines apply: (a) Top downA declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash themfrom the top. ExampleSuppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack hasnot gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it would be consideredirrational to play the 5 first. So declarer gets all the tricks here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shevek Posted September 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 For the record, in Australia (presumably the jurisdiction involved in the OP): AK5 So declarer gets all the tricks here. This is not quite the case here.Low from A-K-5 may be deemed irrational but low from 6-5-2 with the 3 out may not qualify.Also, in the ABF example, claimer probably knew there were 1 or 2 cards out that would fall under the A-K.This declarer thought all trumps were gone.Happy to assume "from the top" but guidelines are unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphatango Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 They may have done poorly in choosing a clear rather than a borderline example. :) However, I think a declarer claiming all the tricks with only one suit left is equivalent to "cashing" that suit, hence from the top down. (For the record, that means I would also award three tricks to declarer who claimed all the tricks holding 652 as their last three cards with the 3 outstanding.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Low from A-K-5 may be deemed irrational but low from 6-5-2 with the 3 out may not qualify.Also, in the ABF example, claimer probably knew there were 1 or 2 cards out that would fall under the A-K.This declarer thought all trumps were gone.Happy to assume "from the top" but guidelines are unclear.I think the ABF/NZ Bridge guidelines are perfectly clear. The respective ROs of Australia and New Zealand have made an election under Law 70E2 to specify "top down" where there is unstated line of play in a disputed claim. I guess a strict interpretation of the "top down" election only applies when declarer states that he is cashing the suit, but when there is only one suit left I think you are deemed to be cashing it when you claim the rest. It's a completely different kettle of fish if there are still other suits in play as a declarer unaware of an outstanding trump might have a "careless or inferior but not irrational" reason to use a low pip to cross to dummy to cash something there, or do something else that results in losing a trump, but if I understand your situation correctly you are talking about a 4-card ending holding J972 in trumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted September 14, 2011 Report Share Posted September 14, 2011 All the tricks, plus a friendly reminder that if she had held cards of other suits then she would have lost one trick, to declarer. Seems the common-sense thing to do. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.