a very hasty claim

[aguahombre]

 

Players bad enough not to realize the possibilty of a bad trump break are not good enough to realize that they can force South to ruff and then pick up the trump

Not necessary with the OP hand, since Declarer roughed at trick one and still holds the heart Ace. He can just pick up four trumps and cash everything but the heart ace until righty parts with the fifth trump. Anyone with the partial brain required to rough trick one should be allowed 6S=

[Vampyr]

Declarer roughed at trick one ...

 

Sounds like a pretty violent game.

[richlp]

Not necessary with the OP hand, since Declarer roughed at trick one and still holds the heart Ace. He can just pick up four trumps and cash everything but the heart ace until righty parts with the fifth trump. Anyone with the partial brain required to rough trick one should be allowed 6S=

I agree completely. Perhaps I didn't phrase my response (to a possible failing line proposed by Iviehoff). A player bad enough not to consider the possibility of a bad break is not good enough to recognize the line he proposed. A player good enough to recognize that line is also good enough to take the simple line to make the contract.

[aguahombre]

since Declarer roughed at trick one

Sounds like a pretty violent game.

Heh. I must have switched on one of those translation programs they use for product assembly instructions.

[GreenMan]

Declarer roughed at trick one

 

I think Rodwell calls this the Sandpaper Coup.

[sfi]

Sounds like a pretty violent game.

 

Indeed. Ruffs are, or were, much more gentile.

[iviehoff]

That's a very good point. Beginners rarely claim at all, and practically never before drawing trumps and being down to all top tricks. I can't think of the last time a novice claimed on a cross-ruff.

We cannot conclude from the evidence of one good play that the player is good, nor from one appalling bad play that a player is a novice. The player is clearly of some experience because they claimed. But there are experienced players, who are nonetheless rather lacking in skill, players who never grew beyond some very basic competences. So they do a few competent things, and a lot of nonsense. They can usually establish suits, cross-ruff, preserve entries, make an avoidance play. They claim when they think they have top tricks. But what they don't do is go off piste. The idea of drawing trumps when you have fewer than the opposition is probably alien to them, as that is just not a technique they know, and they are not reliably in possession of the thinking skills even to consider such an action - conceding trump control to the opposition, in a slam, not even worth thinking about.

 

The whole (intelligent) point of the play of ruffing rather than cashing the A on the first trick depends upon the recognition that one may have to lose the lead at a future point (and other things besides). Yet this player immediately claimed the rest of the tricks, so actually had no recognition of the possibility of losing the lead on this hand. So he did not do it for the intelligent reason. But there is an unintelligent reason for the action on the first trick too. He was going to ruff that heart at some point so he may as well do it now, and by doing it immediately he can claim because now he has 12 "top" cards for the remaining 12 tricks (4S, 1H, 4D, 3C) without having to explain about ruffs in the claim statement.

 

The unsatisfactoriness of incompetent claims is that it conceals what incompetences may have occurred once the player discovers that the state of the world as they conceived it does not in fact exist. This player has already made two egregiously incompetent actions in this hand. To the extent a "normal" line consistent with such levels of incompetence can be exhibited where the player goes down, there are legal grounds for adjudicating the player as going down.

[blackshoe]

Sure. Rule it going down. Then this player joins the category of players who never claim, because the one time they did, the director gave them a bottom.

 

Walk him through his claim statement. Tell him when he leads a low trump to the ace at trick two that North shows out. Ask him "now what?" At least you'll have a little more information on which to base your ruling. And you'll be able to show him why the claim fails. You don't have to show the defenders' hands, at least not while you walk through it.

[iviehoff]

Walk him through his claim statement. Tell him when he leads a low trump to the ace at trick two that North shows out. Ask him "now what?" At least you'll have a little more information on which to base your ruling. And you'll be able to show him why the claim fails. You don't have to show the defenders' hands, at least not while you walk through it.

This idea also occurred to me, and it may be helpful if the defenders haven't exposed their hands or jabbered on about details, though they usually have. So I decided to assume that the information in the OP was the only information we will ever have, since I thought it unlikely we would get more. More generally, you have to be careful about letting a mistaken claimant recover from his misperception, because in real play he might not have recovered or thought in that way.

 

We don't know the player, it is entirely possible this player claims routinely when he has all tops. In general, I don't think players expect to be able to recover from mistaken claims when there is actual substance in what they were mistaken about, and in this case there clearly is substance in what the player was mistaken about. I believe this player has to acknowledge that there was a mistake of substance in this claim, and he will hopefully learn to test trumps, or any other critical break, before claiming in future.