National Pairs claim 3 (EBU)

[VixTD]

..........♥108

..........................♠J

..........................♦7

..........♦94

 

South is in diamonds, the lead is in dummy and he claims the last two tricks. West has no more trumps and South is unaware that there is an outstanding trump.

[Cyberyeti]

I give him 2 tricks, ruffing with the 9 is irrational as it can never gain unless there are 2 or more trumps missing but can lose as here.

[lamford]

I give him 2 tricks, ruffing with the 9 is irrational as it can never gain unless there are 2 or more trumps missing but can lose as here.

"Irrational" is no longer the test, but that does not mean I disagree with you. The test is whether to ruff with the 9 is "normal" which includes "inferior" or "careless". If declarer were leading to the last two tricks, there is case law that when leading trumps he starts from the top. By analogy with that, when ruffing he should be deemed to ruff with the lowest card unless he states otherwise. In each case, to do otherwise (certainly in a two-card ending) is "abnormal" in that it can never gain and may lose.

 

This does not contradict the other ruling, in that declarer did not state "ruffing high".

[billw55]

This is clear case where I don't like the laws. The correct ruling under the existing laws seems to be to give declarer both tricks. But personally, I think the defense should get a trick, and I would definitely support rewriting the claim laws to provide for this.

[ahydra]

Declarer gets away with it this time. Lamford pretty much explained the reasoning: in absence of a "ruff high" statement you assume he'll ruff low.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

in absence of a "ruff high" statement you assume he'll ruff low.

Not an assumption, but a ruling based on the TD's judgment.

[Vampyr]

This is clear case where I don't like the laws. The correct ruling under the existing laws seems to be to give declarer both tricks. But personally, I think the defense should get a trick, and I would definitely support rewriting the claim laws to provide for this.

This is rubbish.

 

What do you want the claim laws to say? Any outstanding trump, ever, scores a trick? Why do you want this, and why do you want the defense to get a trick in this case?

[billw55]

This is rubbish.

 

What do you want the claim laws to say? Any outstanding trump, ever, scores a trick? Why do you want this, and why do you want the defense to get a trick in this case?

I have presented this before in another thread. Quoting myself:

 

I would support the following law:

 

When a claim is made, the non-claiming side is automatically awarded one trick for each trump they hold which is not specifically mentioned or negated in the claim statement, unless it is impossible to win such tricks by any sequence of legal plays.

 

Harsh? Yep. Ambiguous? Nope. That's how I roll.

I want this because 1. it would make claim rulings both simpler and more objective, and 2. I think claimers deserve it for forgetting a trump or botching their statement. Yes, I understand that this is not the law, I am just stating my own personal preference.

 

As examples, a statement of simply "high crossruff" would negate outstanding small trumps. Or if only top trumps remain in one hand, then it is impossible for small trumps to win. But in the case of this thread - one trick to defense.

[Vampyr]

I want this because 1. it would make claim rulings both simpler and more objective, and 2. I think claimers deserve it for forgetting a trump or botching their statement. Yes, I understand that this is not the law, I am just stating my own personal preference.

 

Well, I am not sure why you want to punish people for claiming, unless you hate claims and want to make them less frequent. However, the matter is not really worth more discussion as there is no way such a stupid idea will ever be incorporated into the Bridge Laws.

[billw55]

Well, I am not sure why you want to punish people for claiming, unless you hate claims and want to make them less frequent. However, the matter is not really worth more discussion as there is no way such a stupid idea will ever be incorporated into the Bridge Laws.

I want to punish people for claiming incorrectly. Which is a pretty big distinction from punishing them for claiming.

 

Quite likely, a majority would agree with you that my idea is stupid. That doesn't really bother me.

[lamford]

I want to punish people for claiming incorrectly. Which is a pretty big distinction from punishing them for claiming.

 

Quite likely, a majority would agree with you that my idea is stupid. That doesn't really bother me.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt - Mark Twain (probably paraphrasing the scriptures):

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding - Proverbs 17:28

[billw55]

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt - Mark Twain (probably paraphrasing the scriptures):

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding - Proverbs 17:28

I had no idea you were so spiritual :)

 

Anyway, I already said it doesn't bother me.

[blackshoe]

For myself, the main problem, perhaps the only problem, with the claim laws is that people do not follow them, and then expect the director to bail them out — and all too often he does, at least at club level. By "do not follow them" I mean primarily that they do not give a proper (often they do not give any) line of play statement. As far as adjudicating cases with outstanding trumps, I think the law and informed TD judgment handle those quite well.

[wank]

when i know it doesn't matter i often play de facto equals in a random order. of course it's very difficult to know if the player in question does this, because the only place you have to play the cards out rather than claiming is pseudo-bridge on bbo.

[VixTD]

when i know it doesn't matter i often play de facto equals in a random order. of course it's very difficult to know if the player in question does this, because the only place you have to play the cards out rather than claiming is pseudo-bridge on bbo.

I was expecting this ruling to divide you roughly equally, but it looks as if I'm going to have my work cut out to explain why I awarded the defence one trick. It was essentially for the reasons Wank gives. Is it not generally accepted that a player who thinks their cards are all winners will play them in any order? The White Book states (WB 8.70.5) that suits are usually cashed from the top down (equivalent here to ruffing low), but that this does not always apply.

 

Many of you have said that ruffing high cannot possibly gain, so you will rule that declarer will ruff the first heart low. There are plenty of other situations where we saddle claimer with a line that could not possibly gain.

 

If a player in no trumps has ♠AK ♥AQ ♦- ♣- and claims, saying "all my cards are winners" you would surely award three tricks to the defence if a defender has ♥Kx and a couple of minor-suit winners (some might even consider awarding all four), even though playing hearts before spades cannot gain, and could possibly lose.

 

To adapt National Pairs claim number 2 slightly to what I think was the actual situation at the table, and to put a slightly different statement in the claimer's mouth:

 

........♠7

........♦KJ

♠5.............♥4

♣95...........♦3

........♦Q7

........♣Q

 

South, on lead in clubs, faces his hand and says: "I'll draw the last trump, there's only one small spade (the five) and one small diamond (the three) out, so I'll take the rest."

 

It cannot possibly benefit South to throw the winning spade, but as South hasn't said which card he's going to throw, and throwing any of them will give him (he believes) all the tricks, we resolve doubtful points against the claimer and give the defence two tricks.

 

Don't we?

[barmar]

To adapt National Pairs claim number 2 slightly to what I think was the actual situation at the table, and to put a slightly different statement in the claimer's mouth:

 

........♠7

........♦KJ

♠5.............♥4

♣95...........♦3

........♦Q7

........♣Q

 

South, on lead in clubs, faces his hand and says: "I'll draw the last trump, there's only one small spade (the five) and one small diamond (the three) out, so I'll take the rest."

 

It cannot possibly benefit South to throw the winning spade, but as South hasn't said which card he's going to throw, and throwing any of them will give him (he believes) all the tricks, we resolve doubtful points against the claimer and give the defence two tricks.

 

Don't we?

Specifically mentioning the small spade that's out suggests that he's planning on taking it with the higher spade spot, which implies that he's not going to throw the spade.

 

Sometimes when there are many ways of playing it out to take all the tricks, and it's obvious, I'll claim something like "I have winners coming out my ears". I wouldn't think of making such a claim in the above situation.

[campboy]

Of course it can benefit South to throw the "winning" spade. In fact I think it's the best play, assuming he is wrong about something but we don't know what.

[VixTD]

Specifically mentioning the small spade that's out suggests that he's planning on taking it with the higher spade spot, which implies that he's not going to throw the spade.

Specifically mentioning the diamond that's out suggests he's planning on taking it with the higher diamond spot, which implies he is going to throw the spade.

 

He can't do both.

 

Sometimes when there are many ways of playing it out to take all the tricks, and it's obvious, I'll claim something like "I have winners coming out my ears". I wouldn't think of making such a claim in the above situation.

But in the above situation, declarer believed he had winners coming out of his ears, and that although there was more than one way of playing it out, he didn't believe it made any difference which he chose.

[VixTD]

Of course it can benefit South to throw the "winning" spade. In fact I think it's the best play, assuming he is wrong about something but we don't know what.

OK, I'm sure you're right if absolutely anything could be wrong with declarer's view of the end position when he claims, but some errors are more likely than others, and if he's forgotten an outstanding trump, can it ever be right to throw the spade? If it can't, would you award the defence only one trick?

[campboy]

OK, I'm sure you're right if absolutely anything could be wrong with declarer's view of the end position when he claims, but some errors are more likely than others, and if he's forgotten an outstanding trump, can it ever be right to throw the spade? If it can't, would you award the defence only one trick?

Even if we change the ♠7 to the ♠A I would award a trick. In my experience when players have a choice of suit (to lead or to discard) and believe it doesn't matter, they might choose either. On the other hand when there is a choice of cards in the same suit and the player believes it doesn't matter, it is easier to predict what will be chosen (normally the highest card when cashing tricks, and the lowest when ruffing or discarding).

[barmar]

Specifically mentioning the diamond that's out suggests he's planning on taking it with the higher diamond spot, which implies he is going to throw the spade.

He has two higher diamonds in each hand. Since there's only one low diamond out, he only need one of them to pick it up, so he can obviously afford to discard a diamond. The way he made the claim sounds to me like he's effectively saying "I'll draw the last trump, lead a diamond to dummy to take your diamond, and then the spade to take your lower spade spot."

 

If he's going to throw the spade, the opponent's spade is irrelevant.

[VixTD]

The way he made the claim sounds to me like he's effectively saying "I'll draw the last trump, lead a diamond to dummy to take your diamond, and then the spade to take your lower spade spot."

 

If he's going to throw the spade, the opponent's spade is irrelevant.

I don't think he's making a statement of how he intends to play the cards, he's stating that there are many ways of playing the cards to make the rest of the tricks. This often happens when declarer ends up with more winners in different suits in both hands than there are tricks remaining; he will quite often claim saying "they're all winners" rather than state which winners he's going to take and which he's going to discard.

[mfa1010]

In Denmark we have regulations (based on 70E2) that a declarer is deemed to always cash a suit from the top (when he thinks it is good), and ruff in with his lowest trump (when he thinks there is no danger of an overruff).

 

So this case would be clear: the rest for declarer.

 

Had declarer had ♦942 with the ♦7 outstanding to his right, he would also have got the rest. First he would have been deemed to ruff low, and then he would be deemed to run his suit from the top.

[Vampyr]

Is it not generally accepted that a player who thinks their cards are all winners will play them in any order?

 

Is it? If so it shouldn't be, because in fact they will do this:

 

On the other hand when there is a choice of cards in the same suit and the player believes it doesn't matter, it is easier to predict what will be chosen (normally the highest card when cashing tricks, and the lowest when ruffing or discarding).

[VixTD]

Is it? If so it shouldn't be, because in fact they will do this:

I think it's more accurate to say they will often do this. I've seen people ruff high in this sort of situation.

 

Had declarer had ♦942 with the ♦7 outstanding to his right, he would also have got the rest. First he would have been deemed to ruff low, and then he would be deemed to run his suit from the top.

Our TD guide in England states:

 

Top down? 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. [WB8.70.5]