claim without much explanations

[Fluffy]

http://eurobridge.org/competitions/12Dublin/microSite/Asp/BoardAcross.asp?qboard=011.16..916

 

On this board Duboin declared 4♥ after south opened multi 2♦ and north overcalled 3♦

 

♠10 lead was taken by dummy´s ace, and declarer played ♥A + another heart towards the jack. I won ♥Q and started to think about what to do next. Duboin claimed losing 1♦ and 1♣. I noted that a club switch would get a spade through and then he said he would ruff with ♥K, but a bit late. Anyway an overuff in spades would see my diamond trick dissapear either from dummy´s ♠Q or just discarding dummy´s diamonds on clubs., so can´t really beat it.

 

But is ruffing a spade low considered careless enough for a player of this level?

[pran]

http://eurobridge.org/competitions/12Dublin/microSite/Asp/BoardAcross.asp?qboard=011.16..916

 

On this board Duboin declared 4♥ after south opened multi 2♦ and north overcalled 3♦

 

♠10 lead was taken by dummy´s ace, and declarer played ♥A + another heart towards the jack. I won ♥Q and started to think about what to do next. Duboin claimed losing 1♦ and 1♣. I noted that a club switch would get a spade through and then he said he would ruff with ♥K, but a bit late. Anyway an overuff in spades would see my diamond trick dissapear either from dummy´s ♠Q or just discarding dummy´s diamonds on clubs., so can´t really beat it.

 

But is ruffing a spade low considered careless enough for a player of this level?

I might well be in a minority, but claiming while an opponent has the lead is always (well almost always) a risky action.

 

When he conceded one trick in each minor but said nothing about how to handle a possible spade return from South I would not allow him to ruff with the King in this case.

 

The claim would have been proper with a statement something like: "You get 1♦ and 1♣. There is only one small trump out so I will ruff a possible spade lead with my King and draw the last trump with Dummy's Jack".

 

To me the class of player is irrelevant here.

[Trinidad]

To me the class of player is irrelevant here.

In awarding claims the class of player is always relevant. It is mentioned explicitly in the laws that deal with contested claims (70 and 71).

 

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

What is careless or inferior for one player may be completely absurd for an other.

 

When Duboin plays the trumps like this and then claims, he knows that there is only a small trump out and that he will ruff high. Ruffing small would be beyond careless or inferior, it would be absurd.

 

When Aunt Millie plays like this, she might not even know how many trumps are out, let alone which one(s). Ruffing small wouldn't be merely careless or inferior, it would be normal.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

In practice what all this means is that you consider the class of player when, in the case of a flawed or nonexistent claim statement determining whether there is any doubt of which to give the benefit to claimer's opps. In this case, there seems no doubt that Duboin will ruff high, so there's nothing to give to his opps. Suppose, though, that the TD has observed that Duboin seems to be having a bad day, and has already made several mistakes he would ordinarily not be expected to make? If we now give the benefit of the doubt to his opponents, which seems a reasonable thing to do, we have a situation where the ruling depends on chance - specifically the chance, which may be small (TDs aren't supposed to kibitz) that the TD has observed something about a particular player's current level of play rather than his usual one. Comments?

[AlexJonson]

http://eurobridge.org/competitions/12Dublin/microSite/Asp/BoardAcross.asp?qboard=011.16..916

 

On this board Duboin declared 4♥ after south opened multi 2♦ and north overcalled 3♦

 

♠10 lead was taken by dummy´s ace, and declarer played ♥A + another heart towards the jack. I won ♥Q and started to think about what to do next. Duboin claimed losing 1♦ and 1♣. I noted that a club switch would get a spade through and then he said he would ruff with ♥K, but a bit late. Anyway an overuff in spades would see my diamond trick dissapear either from dummy´s ♠Q or just discarding dummy´s diamonds on clubs., so can´t really beat it.

 

But is ruffing a spade low considered careless enough for a player of this level?

 

I think ruffling low is worse than careless for anyone who would claim in this position.

[pran]

I have a problem with all this:

 

When he found reason to mention his two losers in minors then why didn't he at the same time mention how he would handle a spade return?

 

Honestly, I would tend to accept his claim more easily if he hadn't mentioned anything at all.

 

(When a person states something then what he doesn't state is often far more important.)

[lalldonn]

When he found reason to mention his two losers in minors then why didn't he at the same time mention how he would handle a spade return?

He mentioned the tricks he would lose, not the tricks he wouldn't lose. That seems quite obvious.

[Fluffy]

One thing that might be important is that north opened 2♦ multi showing 6 spades and he has 7, so predicting an uppercut is not as obvious as it would be after a 3♠ opening.

[c_corgi]

The claim statement suggests that he was well aware of the outstanding trump: if North switched to a diamond he was going to play safe and rise with the ace rather than run it round towards his queen, hence the diamond loser. He wasnt going to try (if given the opportunity) to set up clubs to dispose of the diamond loser either, because there was no point. There are other possibilities for what the two remaining defensive tricks will be, such as ace and a club ruff if clubs were 4-1, but in this case the diamond loser does disappear so he knows the defence can never gain.

[billw55]

I think ruffling low is worse than careless for anyone who would claim in this position.

I think ruffling low is worse than careless for Duboin. Lots of players would claim though, very few as good as Duboin.

 

Partial hijack: why is cashing ♥A then small toward J better than just laying down AK?

[AlexJonson]

I think ruffling low is worse than careless for Duboin. Lots of players would claim though, very few as good as Duboin...

 

Are you arguing that it is unwise to claim in a sure tricks ending unless you are known to be world class.

[billw55]

Are you arguing that it is unwise to claim in a sure tricks ending unless you are known to be world class.

Not at all. Only that, if you are not world class, it would be wise to be quite explicit, since you may not get quite so much benefit of doubt.

[bluejak]

I might well be in a minority, but claiming while an opponent has the lead is always (well almost always) a risky action.

When you claim, unless you have made a mistake, the position is clear and unarguable. That is often the case with opponents on lead.

 

If you have made a mistake then your claim is risky or worse: that is true whoever is on lead.

[billw55]

My story about claiming with ops on lead:

 

Some years ago at a regional, I was playing 4S and ducked trick 6 or so into RHO, completing their book. He started tanking, and after 20-30 seconds or so I told him I could claim. After a brief explanation, he accepted, and thanked me (!) for moving things along and sparing him some needless tanking. At the time it was quite an education to me about the difference between how strong players think about claiming, compared to weaker players. I was mostly used to club players who often object to perfectly good claims, which had given me the habit of claiming too infrequently. Now I limit that habit to the known objectors.

[Finch]

I might well be in a minority, but claiming while an opponent has the lead is always (well almost always) a risky action.

 

There is no difference in risk in claiming whoever has the lead.

 

One of the most frustrating things about poor players is their reluctance to claim when an opponent has the lead. It is such a huge waste of time to sit there on lead as a defender, trying to work out how you can beat the contract/get another trick, only to find out 5 minutes later when you finally play a card that declarer says "I have the rest".

 

Some players have the mistaken idea that they can't claim unless they are on lead, so you get conversations along the lines of declarer:"I don't think it matters what you do" defender: "claim then" declarer "Oh no I can't do that"

[AlexJonson]

So, in the context of the OP,

 

Duboin didn't want to insult the opponents, so conceded two tricks in the end position with the opponent on lead.

 

Now we have (IMO) a ridiculous debate about whether declarer should go off for his courtesy.

 

Personally (not being Duboin) and with a nod to Bill, I wouldn't have claimed against most of my oppos at that point in time. Too bad Frances, I 'know' I have sure tricks, but I'm not risking them for the opponents' sake when I can't envisage every pointless defence the opponents might try.

[aguahombre]

Duboin didn't want to insult the opponents, so conceded two tricks in the end position with the opponent on lead.

 

I wouldn't have claimed against most of my oppos at that point in time.

You want to insult most of your opponents. :P

 

Me, too. And I agree with the rest of your post also. The opps should get their two tricks and a lot less ink...no trump trick for them.

[CSGibson]

 

Partial hijack: why is cashing ♥A then small toward J better than just laying down AK?

 

Because LHO might have QTxx. AK gives up 2 tricks, A & low 1 in isolation.