Successful Claim?

[Chris3875]

The contract is Hearts. North is the dealer and there are 3 cards left in all hands. North has 9xx hearts and dummy has 1 small spade and 2 small clubs. West has 8H, 1 spade and 1 club and East has nothing worth mentioning. The lead is in dummy and North claims but does not give any line of play - just shows his cards. I guess the normal line of play is for North to lead either a small spade or club from dummy and then trump it small in hand, followed by the 9H (West's 8 would drop) but should the "inferior or careless" in the Law Book allow for North to trump high when the spade/club is played from dummy - or alternatively allow for North to follow up the small trump of the club/spade with another small trump lead? The standard of players was basic.

[Vampyr]

It seems that declarer was unaware that there was a trump out. If he was not, he might realise that ruffing high was futile.

 

Anyway, in practice I think that he will not ruff high, and will follow with the top trump. The Law mentins "careless or inferior" but is mute on "counterintuitive", but many such rulinmgs are based on the latter.

 

It is a pity, because declarer should not get this.

[billw55]

The defense should get one trick. In my opinion, careless and inferior definitely includes leading a low trump from hand. Declarer gave no indication that he is aware of the outstanding trump, and therefore this is a doubtful point which should be resolved against him.

[Vampyr]

The defense should get one trick. In my opinion, careless and inferior definitely includes leading a low trump from hand.

 

Do people really do this, though? I am not sure I have ever seen it.

[Vampyr]

Sigh...

[blackshoe]

The defense should get one trick. In my opinion, careless and inferior definitely includes leading a low trump from hand.

Director!!! Lead out of turn!!! B-)

 

Edit: Oh, I see. You're talking about the lead to trick 12. Sorry, my bad. :lol:

 

The question is, having led a card from dummy which West, holding the trump 8, cannot ruff, will declarer ruff low, or ruff high? If he knows West's cards, he'll ruff low. If he hasn't a clue, he might do anything. Would it be irrational to ruff high if he thinks all his trumps are equivalent? No. So it seems to me one trick should go to the defense.

 

It seems unlikely that a player, having trumped low on the lead from dummy, would play his low remaining trump next, but "unlikely" isn't the criterion". The same reasoning as above applies - it would be careless, but not irrational, to lead the remaining low trump, so again the defense gets one of the remaining three tricks.

 

I've had players argue with me that "of course I would ruff low and then lead my high trump!" Sorry, but if that's what you were going to do, you should have said so when you claimed.

[nige1]

IMO Blackshoe and Billw55 correctly interpret the law, as written; but I doubt that a national director would rule that way, nowadays.

[blackshoe]

Are you talking about a Scottish national director, an English national director, an Australian director, or an American director? Or all four? And why would any of them rule incorrectly?

[Mbodell]

I think declarer gets all the tricks. It is clearer if East has already shown out of trumps because then declarer is claiming, in essence, on the marked "finesse" for the one remaining trump. Unless declarer is a super novice player (I.e., one that might well play the Q for AQ intentionally under opponents already played K, and not for any sneaky endplay or ruff sluff or entry reasons) I'd give them all the tricks anyways.

[blackshoe]

There is no evidence that declarer has any idea there's a trump out, much less where it is. Aside from that, there is the provision of Law 70A that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer".

[campboy]

The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

Has the RA in question done so? If not I think we have to rule that declarer, believing both his trumps to be winners at trick 12, might play them in either order.

 

Incidentally, the correct safety play when the lead to trick 11 is in dummy and you have the only three remaining trumps in hand is to ruff with the middle one. Provided you haven't miscounted by more than one, this makes the maximum number of tricks in all cases.

[WellSpyder]

Incidentally, the correct safety play when the lead to trick 11 is in dummy and you have the only three remaining trumps in hand is to ruff with the middle one. Provided you haven't miscounted by more than one, this makes the maximum number of tricks in all cases.

Are you sure it is reasonable to assume that someone who can't count can nevertheless get to within one of the right answer? :)

[Lanor Fow]

Not sure about authorities other that the EBU, Campboy, but 'generally' the EBU has specified top down in the white book:

 

"8.70.5 Top down?

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the

top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has

not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be

considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it

may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six.

8.70.6 Different suits

If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, and a trick could be lost by playing or

discarding one suit rather than another then the TD should award that trick to the nonclaimers.

Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. They appear

to have forgotten their J is not a winner. It is ‘careless’ that they should discard

some other winner to retain the J"

[billw55]

Actually declarer has two opportunities to lose a trick: ruffing high, or ruffing low then leading low. Are we going to give him a free pass of both of these, after making no claim statement?

 

In general I just really favor harsher laws about improper claims.

[Vampyr]

Actually declarer has two opportunities to lose a trick: ruffing high, or ruffing low then leading low. Are we going to give him a free pass of both of these, after making no claim statement?

 

In general I just really favor harsher laws about improper claims.

 

I think that at least the rulings should be harsh, but I just don't think that, in practice, declarer will lose a trick in either of these ways -- no matter how badly I want to give a trick to the defenders!

[barmar]

Actually declarer has two opportunities to lose a trick: ruffing high, or ruffing low then leading low. Are we going to give him a free pass of both of these, after making no claim statement?

The only reason to ruff high is if you're worried about an overruff, which implies that you think there may be a trump outstanding. But if you know that, you also presumably know that ruffing high could promote it (unless you have two high trumps, so you can afford to ruff with one of them).

[aguahombre]

I thought this frequent problem with a claim (a trump out) had been hashed over enough by now that the ruling be a given... "These are all good." means they are all good. If one of the cards in a defender's hand is higher than one of the cards which are "all good", they aren't all good. If declarer thinks they are all good, he could play any one of them at any point, so the Defenders get the outstanding trump.

[chrism]

The ACBL provides quite extensive guidelines for those under its jurisdiction. After a number of examples, the directions quoted in the ACBLscore tech file conclude with this passage:

 

Whenever there is an attempt to establish guidelines, there is a risk that some will use them in lieu of common sense or even of law. Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to form a basis for consistency. With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims:

 

A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible

for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the

top down).

 

B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was

likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

 

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

with a "high" trump.

 

D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps

to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.

(Directions - July/October, 1992)

[Vampyr]

I thought this frequent problem with a claim (a trump out) had been hashed over enough by now that the ruling be a given... "These are all good." means they are all good. If one of the cards in a defender's hand is higher than one of the cards which are "all good", they aren't all good. If declarer thinks they are all good, he could play any one of them at any point, so the Defenders get the outstanding trump.

 

It did not seem that declarer said "these are all good" though... apparently he said nothing at all. I think he will get three tricks in the EBU (see post #13 above). The post immediately preceding this one seems to indicate that he will be awarded all the tricks in the ACBL too, though B and C contradict each other somewhat.

[jeffford76]

In general I just really favor harsher laws about improper claims.

 

I want exactly the opposite. The game is much more pleasant when people claim when they have the rest. Taking away tricks on claims that were very unlikely to be lost makes people much less likely to claim.

 

The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

[blackshoe]

Of those four guidelines, A and D are irrelevant to this case. C I would apply in situations where taking this "safety check" results in declarer losing a trick. The fact that it is "normal" to make such a play does not imply that it is irrational not to do so. That leaves us with B - and the ruling that billw and I have already proposed.

 

A player "should", says the law, make a clear line of play statement. This means that if a player does not do so, he is subject to procedural penalty. I know that a lot of directors are reluctant to issue such penalties, particularly in club games. Some would cite the frequency of these infractions as a reason not to give a penalty. I think that's backwards. The fact that these infractions are relatively frequent implies that players do not learn from their error. Seems to me, that being the case, that a procedural penalty is more desirable in these cases. That said, I would start with a warning along the lines of "if you continue to commit this infraction in future, I will assign a PP in matchpoints". Having given the warning, I will carry it out - it does absolutely no good whatsoever to do as some TDs do, and just give a "warning" (or, as one of the TDs around here is wont to do, say mildly "you should give a line of play statement") every time it happens.

[Vampyr]

The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

 

This is all true, but perhaps it is best if people get in the habit of making a brief statement. Though in a case like this "I ruff and then my hand is high" seems a little redundant.

[blackshoe]

"Club to my hand, ruff small, high trump, low trump" seems concise and accurate enough.

[billw55]

I want exactly the opposite. The game is much more pleasant when people claim when they have the rest. Taking away tricks on claims that were very unlikely to be lost makes people much less likely to claim.

 

The current case is a position where normal play takes all the tricks. People don't generally unnecessarily ruff high, and they don't play out their long suits from the bottom. I'd much rather have the time savings from claims in general then send another person to "I never claim"-land by taking a trick here.

Personally, I prefer that people never claim, unless they can claim correctly. Just personal preference.

 

Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand.

[blackshoe]

Also note that director calls for failed claims generally take more time than playing out the hand.

Which is, of course, illegal. You're right that director calls in these cases waste much time - and a large percentage of those calls arise because the claimer did not follow the rules and give a clear line of play statement. For such a player to then say "well, I got an adverse ruling so I'm never claiming again!" is just plain stupid - and if I were to find such a player the cause of a "slow play" ruling, in an obvious claim situation, I'd be inclined to drop a couple rocks on his head. B-)