Drawing Trumps

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj5h6dakqj4ct5&w=s6432hqj97dtc9874&n=st987ha532d6cak63&e=shkt84d987532cqj2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p4n(RKCB)p5h(2%20no%20queen)p5n(kings%3F)p6c(KC%20or%20both%20red%20kings)p7sppp]399|300[/hv]

Contract 7S by South. Lead T♦

 

Our friend, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, was as pedantic as ever on this hand from a local match. As one might expect, the match hinged on the ruling on this board. Declarer claimed at trick one, when East followed, stating "drawing trumps"; "I can then ruff a diamond if need be". SB called the director, and indicated that declarer's claim specified that he would draw all the trumps, and even though he had a 100% line of ruffing a diamond first, he was not allowed to take it, as drawing all the trumps was an inferior but only careless line. How do you rule?

[ggwhiz]

Down 1 is so clear.

 

If east had the only club and diamond guard (with west having zero diamonds) the only winning line is as stated with a squeeze on east. Better question, can east cash the extra trump to perform the squeeze?

[Cyberyeti]

Down 1 is so clear.

 

If east had the only club and diamond guard (with west having zero diamonds) the only winning line is as stated with a squeeze on east. Better question, can east cash the extra trump to perform the squeeze?

 

Absolute rubbish. Declarer clearly from his stated line of play thinks he will have trumps over after drawing them, it will become apparent after one round that this is not the case at which point his claim is void and he can switch lines.

 

Drawing 4 rounds of trumps is beyond inferior.

[spaderaise]

Down 1 is so clear.

 

If east had the only club and diamond guard (with west having zero diamonds) the only winning line is as stated with a squeeze on east. Better question, can east cash the extra trump to perform the squeeze?

 

I think you missed that West led a diamond - so he definitely has more than zero. Ruffing the small diamond after the first or second round of trumps is safe.

[lamford]

Absolute rubbish. Declarer clearly from his stated line of play thinks he will have trumps over after drawing them, it will become apparent after one round that this is not the case at which point his claim is void and he can switch lines.

Absolute rubbish. Declarer might equally have thought three rounds of trumps were sufficient to draw them all. In which case he may then cash his diamonds and ruff one if necessary. I think when his line is legal, we follow it until it breaks down.

[Cyberyeti]

Absolute rubbish. Declarer might equally have thought three rounds of trumps were sufficient to draw them all. In which case he may then cash his diamonds and ruff one if necessary. I think when his line is legal, we follow it until it breaks down.

 

You ask him the question, it's the first one you ask.

[ahydra]

Down one.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

You ask him the question, it's the first one you ask.

No you don't. You follow the procedure outlined in the Laws (from 70B):

 

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

 

In this case, we have the clarification statement repeated. The objection of SB is given, and the cards are face up. The TD does not ask South how many trumps he thought were out, or how he proposed to ruff a diamond if four rounds were drawn, or any other rubbish. He just follows the clarification statement and when it breaks down he selects the least favourable "normal" line. He takes into account SB's objection, but also any other potential objection to the claim which he observes.

 

The interesting aspect of this claim is that South can actually make the contract by drawing four rounds of trumps. East gets squeezed out of his third heart, and then declarer plays the ace of hearts and ruffs a heart to isolate the heart menace for the double squeeze. So, it can hardly be said that declarer's line, successful with good card-reading, was worse than careless. Now we cannot give him this double squeeze of course!

[Cyberyeti]

No you don't. You follow the procedure outlined in the Laws (from 70B):

 

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

 

In this case, we have the clarification statement repeated. The objection of SB is given, and the cards are face up. The TD does not ask South how many trumps he thought were out, or how he proposed to ruff a diamond if four rounds were drawn, or any other rubbish. He just follows the clarification statement and when it breaks down he selects the least favourable "normal" line. He takes into account SB's objection, but also any other potential objection to the claim which he observes.

 

The interesting aspect of this claim is that South can actually make the contract by drawing four rounds of trumps. East gets squeezed out of his third heart, and then declarer plays ace and another heart to isolate the heart menace for the double squeeze. So, it can hardly be said that declarer's line, successful with good card-reading, was worse than careless. Now we cannot give him this double squeeze of course!

 

The claim statement is contradictory so cannot be followed.

 

What the normal line of play is DEPENDS on how many trumps declarer thought he was missing.

 

If 3 it's to draw 3 rounds of trumps, ruff the low diamond, ruff your way back to hand (if either plain suit is getting overruffed he loses, but not here) then cash winners trumps first.

 

If 4 he draws one trump, ruffs the low diamond, returns in trumps and always makes.

 

I rule he makes every time.

[lamford]

If 3 it's to draw 3 rounds of trumps, ruff the low diamond, ruff your way back to hand (if either plain suit is getting overruffed he loses, but not here) then cash winners trumps first.

If he thinks that he has drawn all the trumps, then a normal line would certainly be to cash the top diamonds next and ruff one if necessary. West ruffs, and he now overruffs and needs to play the double squeeze again. And in your line when he ruffs his way back to hand, then he can cash the winners in any order, as he has clearly overlooked the missing trump.

 

And, if you ask declarer, he will surely say "four" when asked how many trumps he thought he was missing, as there has been a contested claim which he will realise immediately can only be because someone has four trumps. And the claim statement breaks down when he draws all four trumps and finds the diamonds do not break, not before. He used the word "then".

[Cyberyeti]

 

And, if you ask declarer, he will surely say "four" when asked how many trumps he thought he was missing, as there has been a contested claim which he will realise immediately can only be because someone has four trumps. And the claim statement breaks down when he draws all four trumps and finds the diamonds do not break, not before. He used the word "then".

 

He might easily say 3, particularly if he has a club among his spades. The question is when he's allowed to realise this.

[blackshoe]

And, if you ask declarer, he will surely say "four" when asked how many trumps he thought he was missing, as there has been a contested claim which he will realise immediately can only be because someone has four trumps.

I suppose it depends on how you ask. "How many trump do you think are out?" might elicit this response. "At the time you made your claim, how many trump did you think were out?" should not — unless you believe all bridge players are liars. If you do believe that, best not ask the question at all - which strikes me as a poor way to determine the relevant facts.

[Sjoerds]

1. It is clear to me that South would have made his contract when he normally played the hand.

2. But it is also clear to me that his claim wasn't that accurate.

Which line to follow?

LAW 70D1 is my guide:

Is it normal for this south to cash trumps first and expect diamonds to be 5-2 or worse (38%)

Or is it obvious for this south after one round of trump to trump one diamond risking diamonds to be 0-7 (0,x%)

 

I don't know this south but I tend to accept his claim

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj5h6dakqj4ct5&w=s6432hqj97dtc9874&n=st987ha532d6cak63&e=shkt84d987532cqj2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p4n(RKCB)p5h(2%20no%20queen)p5n(kings%3F)p6c(KC%20or%20both%20red%20kings)p7sppp]399|300|Contract 7S by South. Lead T♦. Our friend, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, was as pedantic as ever on this hand from a local match. As one might expect, the match hinged on the ruling on this board. Declarer claimed at trick one, when East followed, stating "drawing trumps"; "I can then ruff a diamond if need be". SB called the director, and indicated that declarer's claim specified that he would draw all the trumps, and even though he had a 100% line of ruffing a diamond first, he was not allowed to take it, as drawing all the trumps was an inferior but only careless line. How do you rule?[/hv]

IMO GGWhizz, Ahydra, and Lamford are right. The director should rule one down. Dissenting opinions are understandable because claims-law is so fuzzy that directors have grown to rely solely on subjective judgement. In this exceptionally simple case, however, the law is clear.

 

Another interesting question, raised on BLML: What does "Drawing trumps" mean? Must the claimer play trumps until both opponents discard? or may he stop as soon as opponents' trumps are exhausted? If the latter, is the director expected to count trumps for him?

[barmar]

I generally interpret "drawing trumps" to mean playing trumps just until the opponents' trumps are exhausted, and I assume declarer knows how many trumps are out. But the issue in this case isn't whether he knows how many are out, but how he deals with the bad split. If they don't include a qualification like "unless they're 4-0", I expect them to finish drawing trumps before doing anything else.

 

This works for both good and bad players. A bad player might not notice the problem that the bad break causes, and would play for diamonds to run. A good player should know better than to omit this caveat in their claim.

[spaderaise]

1. It is clear to me that South would have made his contract when he normally played the hand.

2. But it is also clear to me that his claim wasn't that accurate.

Which line to follow?

LAW 70D1 is my guide:

Is it normal for this south to cash trumps first and expect diamonds to be 5-2 or worse (38%)

Or is it obvious for this south after one round of trump to trump one diamond risking diamonds to be 0-7 (0,x%)

 

Diamonds are not 0-7 because both opponents played a diamond to the first trick.

[nige1]

I suppose it depends on how you ask. "How many trump do you think are out?" might elicit this response. "At the time you made your claim, how many trump did you think were out?" should not — unless you believe all bridge players are liars. If you do believe that, best not ask the question at all - which strikes me as a poor way to determine the relevant facts.

Why are directors so keen to rule in favour of players who delude themselves about the truth and against those who admit the truth?

[billw55]

I generally interpret "drawing trumps" to mean playing trumps just until the opponents' trumps are exhausted, and I assume declarer knows how many trumps are out. But the issue in this case isn't whether he knows how many are out, but how he deals with the bad split. If they don't include a qualification like "unless they're 4-0", I expect them to finish drawing trumps before doing anything else.

 

This works for both good and bad players. A bad player might not notice the problem that the bad break causes, and would play for diamonds to run. A good player should know better than to omit this caveat in their claim.

Agree, and I would emphasize that any process which could award a different ruling to an expert or C player who did the exact same thing, is severely flawed, to say the least.

[nige1]

Declarer claimed at trick one, when East followed, stating "drawing trumps"; "I can then ruff a diamond if need be."

Trivial point irrelevant to the main argument: to determine if he needs to ruff a ♦, declarer has to cash a second top ♦. Presumably, those who rule that the contract makes, also direct that declarer draws less than three rounds of trumps. If declarer has drawn a three rounds, then LHO can ruff the top ♦ when declarer attempts to cash it, leaving declarer with a ♦ loser.

[blackshoe]

Why are directors so keen to rule in favour of players who delude themselves about the truth and against those who admit the truth?

I fail to see how you get that inference from what I said - particularly since it is not true of me.

[nige1]

I fail to see how you get that inference from what I said - particularly since it is not true of me.

Sorry I was just trying to make the obvious point that few people are simple liars or truth-tellers. Interpolating from the world at large, rationalisers and self-deluders are likely to be more common. If directors ask about players' intentions and believe some of the latter group, then truth-tellers are put at a disadvantage.

[blackshoe]

More common than what? Anyway, in my experience, both at the bridge table and otherwise, if you ask someone a simple question, you will usually get a truthful answer. From a director's viewpoint, this is a good thing, because unless you know the person very well, you may not be able to tell for sure that he's being completely truthful. Yes, sometimes that results in an unfair disadvantage to innocent opponents. Sorry, no system is perfect. OTOH, sooner or later, if a player makes a habit of stretching the truth, the TD will become aware of it and give him what he deserves.

[nige1]

More common than what? Anyway, in my experience, both at the bridge table and otherwise, if you ask someone a simple question, you will usually get a truthful answer. From a director's viewpoint, this is a good thing, because unless you know the person very well, you may not be able to tell for sure that he's being completely truthful. Yes, sometimes that results in an unfair disadvantage to innocent opponents.

My contention is that, at the bridge-table, as in the world at large, rationalisers and self deluders are more common than simple liars and truth-tellers. For instance, players often tell you

• A mistake was a slip of the hand not the mind.
• They did not break tempo.
• They did not notice UI.
• UI did not influence their action.
• It is obvious from their claim statement that they intended to draw/not draw trumps (as appropriate).
• I'm sure you can supply dozens of other examples.

IMO: sometimes they are telling the truth. When not telling the truth, however, few are deliberately lying. They're simply deluding themselves.

Sorry, no system is perfect. OTOH, sooner or later, if a player makes a habit of stretching the truth, the TD will become aware of it and give him what he deserves.

No system is perfect but many bridge laws could be simplified to rely less on mind-reading.

 

I'm intrigued by Blackshoe's last statement. What do plausible rationalisers get and what do they deserve?

[blackshoe]

• A mistake was a slip of the hand not the mind.
• They did not break tempo.
• four words: "preponderance of the evidence".
• They did not notice UI.
• UI did not influence their action.
• Irrelevant.
• It is obvious from their claim statement that they intended to draw/not draw trumps (as appropriate).
• No, it isn't.
• I'm sure you can supply dozens of other examples.
• And I can respond to them the same way I've responded to the above.

 

I'm intrigued by Blackshoe's last statement. What do plausible rationalisers get and what do they deserve?

I was writing of liars, not your "plausible rationalisers".

[mycroft]

true plausible rationalizers get the hand as a "problem that came up yesterday" in the bar a couple of months later.

 

Most of what Nigel is talking about is "small pause, maybe 5 seconds" vs "30 seconds at least" around the table, and the answer is that TDs actually know about it, and take it into account. Yes, sometimes people get something they don't deserve. More often, they are quietly told that they're plausibly rationalizing, and get something they do deserve. Probably more often, too, they get something they don't deserve, the wrong way, because they weren't plausibly rationalizing. Definitely more often, they are told (whether it's true or not) "We believe you, but the law is written so that we have to rule the same way on 'honest as the day is long' and 'tryin' one on' so there's no argument about belief."