"You get a heart"

[Phil]

♠2

♥T62

 

 

.............♥K

.............♦432

 

♠A

♥AQJ

 

Spades are trump. Flight B (maybe A-) declarer.

 

Declarer faces his hand and says "you get a heart".

 

Do they?

[jonottawa]

No. If ♥ were trump, yes.

[barmar]

Agreed. Some people will claim that it's extremely careless, but not irrational to play hearts from the bottom if you think you're destined to lose a heart. They're just being silly.

[Siegmund]

In the old days, I believed that a line of play that sometimes lost but never gained was always "irrational," in a game-theoretic sense, and interpreted "careless or inferior but not irrational" to mean "any line that is not dominated by another line."

 

But there was a thread on the Laws list, years ago, where we discussed AQT9x opposite K87x, and a majority formed the view that king-first was merely careless, because world class players had done it.

 

Put me of the view that, if the laws said what I wanted them to say, no heart trick is lost here.... but as things currently stand... he's already said he is giving up on whatever remote chances he had of dropping the king, and if he wants to give the trick away I let him. On my more charitable days I would give it back to him if I were East.

[blackshoe]

Is a concession of one of four remaining tricks a suggestion that play be curtailed?

[pran]

Is a concession of one of four remaining tricks a suggestion that play be curtailed?

Certainly yes.

It is one way of claiming three of the four tricks.

[blackshoe]

Follow-on question: Is it possible to concede some, but not all, of the remaining tricks without claiming the rest?

[Finch]

♠2

♥T62

 

 

.............♥K

.............♦432

 

♠A

♥AQJ

 

Spades are trump. Flight B (maybe A-) declarer.

 

Declarer faces his hand and says "you get a heart".

 

Do they?

 

Yes.

 

I have frequently heard claims of the form "unless the king is singleton, you get a heart" in which case declarer gets all the tricks.

But without saying that, the thought of stiff K hasn't occurred to him, so there's no reason he would start with the ace.

[blackshoe]

Declarer is not paying attention. Clearly in this situation the right move is to play the ♥A and then claim. Or say, as part of his claim statement, that he will do that. Of course, as the lady said in the post-mortem, perhaps he "didn't come here to think, he came here to play bridge!" :lol:

[Finch]

Follow-on question: Is it possible to concede some, but not all, of the remaining tricks without claiming the rest?

 

I think it is technically possible but usually happens in cases where it is arguable whether or not declarer is actually making a claim or concession.

Examples:

 

Declarer leads towards dummy's KJ and starts thinking; RHO says "I've got the AQ" declarer says "I'll be losing two tricks in this suit then"

Declarer's in a slam with a trump suit of Axxxx opposite Kxxx, he cashes the ace and someone discards, and he says "OK I'm going off, I've got two trump losers"

 

This matters, because if declarer's claiming for one off in his slam, his play in the other suits will be judged by the claim rules, while in fact the play may require some more detailed attention to avoid going two off which declarer fully intends to give.

 

In practice, declarer makes some statement like "you get a heart and a club" making the "...and I have the rest" implicit.

[lalldonn]

I would never give the defense a trick here. I think the type of players who aren't good enough to think of singleton K here are the same ones who don't just randomly play suits in any order but top down. Every time I say that someone tries to provide a counterexample but I still think it's true 95++% of the time.

[phil_20686]

I would never claim a trick as east. I would be embarrassed if I were west in a club and my partner tried to claim a trick here. I would feel differently if I were playing a major tournament, I think at high levels it is reasonable to hold players to a higher standard in claims.

[axman]

I think it is technically possible but usually happens in cases where it is arguable whether or not declarer is actually making a claim or concession.

Examples:

 

Declarer leads towards dummy's KJ and starts thinking; RHO says "I've got the AQ" declarer says "I'll be losing two tricks in this suit then"

 

 

Me, I'll win the K.

[Finch]

Me, I'll win the K.

 

how?

[axman]

how?

 

After getting a ruling that the AQ are PCs I play the K and require the Q played under it.

[lalldonn]

After getting a ruling that the AQ are PCs I play the K and require the Q played under it.

"I've got the AQ" is a claim in that situation. But even if it weren't, it is dispicible to try and get a trick out of that. He told you he had the AQ as a favor, to everyone at the table including you, to save you time and you brain cells. It would be like if someone reaches out his hand to help you across a puddle, and you use the opportunity to pull him into the puddle so you can walk on him and stay even drier.

[gordontd]

After getting a ruling that the AQ are PCs

Who's going to give you that ruling?

[axman]

Who's going to give you that ruling?

 

You.

 

LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);

 

 

LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

[lalldonn]

You.

 

LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);

 

 

LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

68A 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).

 

68D Play Ceases

After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Directors arrival.

 

"I have the AQ" when you are thinking which of a K or J to play in front of him is a statement to the effect that he will win those two tricks, so it is a claim.

 

And I reiterate that repaying your opponent doing you this favor by trying to get an extra trick out of him is dispicible, and you shouldn't need a law to figure that out.

[gordontd]

Who's going to give you that ruling?

 

 

You.

Nope. He's made a claim and I'll treat it as such.

[Lurpoa]

♠2

♥T62

 

 

.............♥K

.............♦432

 

♠A

♥AQJ

 

Spades are trump. Flight B (maybe A-) declarer.

 

Declarer faces his hand and says "you get a heart".

 

Do they?

 

 

And I give you one back:

 

 

♥

 

[iviehoff]

Agreed. Some people will claim that it's extremely careless, but not irrational to play hearts from the bottom if you think you're destined to lose a heart. They're just being silly.

I'm silly enough to disagree with you.

 

A declarer daft enough to make such a concession in the first place is daft enough to play hearts from the bottom in my view. Many people actually do this, so I would say it lay within the bounds of usual carelessness, even if I don't disagree with "extremely careless" in a broader sense. "Irrational" is a difficult word, because any play that falls short of best play could be described as "irrational" in some definitions of the word. But when the law-makers use the word, I think they have in mind some exceedingly bizarre play you just don't see.

 

In terms of OP's original question, the defence certainly get the trick if no one says anything - I would not say there is any obligation on the defence to refuse the concession as there is a way they can win the trick. A kind defender might refuse the concession. If that doesn't happen, declarer will have to seek to withdraw the concession if he wants the trick back. My experience is that TDs are not kind to declarers seeking to withdraw concessions unless the loss of the trick really is impossible (and even then they are reluctant - a TD once ruled I couldn't withdraw my concession of trick 14). As TD, I wouldn't agree to the withdrawal for the reason given in the first sentence of my second para.

[CamHenry]

I'm silly enough to disagree with you.

 

A declarer daft enough to make such a concession in the first place is daft enough to play hearts from the bottom in my view. Many people actually do this, so I would say it lay within the bounds of usual carelessness, even if I don't disagree with "extremely careless" in a broader sense. "Irrational" is a difficult word, because any play that falls short of best play could be described as "irrational" in some definitions of the word. But when the law-makers use the word, I think they have in mind some exceedingly bizarre play you just don't see.

 

In terms of OP's original question, the defence certainly get the trick if no one says anything - I would not say there is any obligation on the defence to refuse the concession as there is a way they can win the trick. A kind defender might refuse the concession. If that doesn't happen, declarer will have to seek to withdraw the concession if he wants the trick back. My experience is that TDs are not kind to declarers seeking to withdraw concessions unless the loss of the trick really is impossible (and even then they are reluctant - a TD once ruled I couldn't withdraw my concession of trick 14). As TD, I wouldn't agree to the withdrawal for the reason given in the first sentence of my second para.

 

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

 

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

[ahydra]

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash.

 

I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

 

IMHO this is taking things a bit too far. Indeed one might be able to tell from the play that declarer has pulled trumps and counted them correctly.

 

As for the actual claim, since there is a plausible line of play where declarer can lose a heart, he loses a heart. If he'd just said "the rest are mine" then I would give him all four tricks.

 

ahydra

[phil_20686]

Ruling that you lose a heart here seems pretty bad at club level. Its just the kind of ruling that creates lots of ill feeling for no reason. Claiming is basically a courtesy to the defence. I would like club players to claim a lot more. I have lost count of the times I have tanked in defence for several minutes, on potentially very difficult end positions, when in fact declarer had all the rest of the tricks, or a hand where the position was basically a non event, but they don't claim because they had one of these rulings and now "don;t ever claim".

 

Its different if you are playing in a high level tournament, where it is legitimate to take pretty much any excuse to make your opponents waste brain power, or to take advantage of their poor claims.

 

No one likes these rulings. Declarer is usually annoyed that you are enforcing a frankly bizarre line of play. The other tables don't like as it basically randomises the results for no reason. Often the defenders don't even like it. If you have defended well and already saved a trick and were hoping for a good score, and your efforts are rendered irrelevant, and rob you of a good story.