Claim dispute

[dan_ehh]

Hi all,

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa985h85dakqtck75&w=sj642ha93d9875ca3&n=skt3hkqjt76d42c84&e=sq7h42dj63cqjt962&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2h(8-11)p3nppp&p=s2s3sqsah5h3hkh4hqh2h8h9hjc9s5hacac4c2c5c3]399|300[/hv]

 

At this point declarer says "I think I have the rest", puts the ♣K and the ♦AKQT on the table, gestures towards dummy saying "spade" (just the word).

 

How many tricks?

 

Thanks,

Dan

[TylerE]

Imo, all of them, but just because he's lucky that everything is onside/breaking.

 

Stated line is K♣, running diamonds from the top, and then playing a spade to dummy.

[sfi]

Aren't there 8 obviously good tricks? What is the defence concerned about?

[paulg]

NEXT! (as Joey would say). Diamond layout irrelevant.

[PhilKing]

You are entitled to the rest unless you are playing against the spouse of the director.

[Trinidad]

Like the others stated: Declarer takes the rest.

 

But it is also important to know why we give declarer the rest. We need to judge how the play would have gone if it would have been played out. This, you can see that from the play.

 

The very first thing declarer does is to develop the heart suit. As soon as the heart suit is developed (after trick 4), he has 10 top tricks (♠AK, 5 hearts, ♦AKQ) with some possibilities for extra tricks (spade finesse, diamond situation, club king) and the defense has one (♥A). As soon as West takes his ♣A, declarer knows that his ♣K will be trick 11, and the defense has 2, so he won't get more.

 

From the way declarer played the hand, it is clear that he intends to cash the hearts, and he thinks it is absolute obvious to every one that dummy's hearts are good. The only thing that his opponents do not know yet, and that he will need to show them, is that he has the tricks and the stops outside hearts. Therefore, he shows the ♣K (that is the most likely continuation), the diamonds and says "spade" (probably pointing to dummy) in that order. That is not a stated line. It shows the winners outside hearts.

 

He expects everyone to understand this (and I would expect that too). But, as Phil said, obviously the TDs spouse won't understand.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Therefore, he shows the ♣K (that is the most likely continuation),

The claim was made after LHO led a second club, so it was not only most likely, it was the actual continuation.

 

I think "spade" was just pointing out how he would reach dummy to cash the good hearts.

[dan_ehh]

Thank you very much for your answers.

I was declarer in this hand, and I made a tactical error in this post - I should have altered the hand so that the ♦J does not drop. These were the actual cards, so I couldn't go wrong regardless, but I honestly did not think the ♦ position was relevant.

My claim statement admittedly was flawed, but the situation was so obvious. The word "spade" referred to the single discard I would be taking from dummy on the 3rd top ♦, that is why I gestured towards dummy.

My opponent, a well known world class player, said the fact that the ♦ten was put on the table creates doubt, so let me emphasize the question - does anyone (other than TylerE) think I would have less tricks if the ♦J were guarded? Is there any doubt here which should be resolved against the claimer?

[campboy]

I would rule against you if the ♦J didn't drop. Why show the ♦T but not the ♣7, if not because you intend to win one but not the other?

[Bbradley62]

I agree with Tyler and Campboy... You have 8 top cards for the last 8 tricks, including only 3 diamonds, but your sloppy claim opened you to the possibility of losing one (or maybe even up to four) if the diamonds had sat differently.

[sfi]

Declarer knows the hearts are good. Defence knows that declarer knows the hearts are good. Declarer has shown that both by setting them up and then by actually claiming them as tricks. Trying to force declarer to pitch one of them on a card for which there is no evidence that it will be good smacks of rules lawyering rather than playing bridge.

 

Your well known world class opponent was just trying to intimidate you. Next time, call their bluff and ask for a director's ruling since they have expressed concern about the validity of the claim. My bet is it would shut them up pretty quickly.

[barmar]

This is the kind of hand where I would claim "I have 9 of the last 8 tricks if the ♦J falls."

[Bbradley62]

See... I still wanna be able to upvote yellows and admins :rolleyes:

[WellSpyder]

I would rule against you if the ♦J didn't drop. Why show the ♦T but not the ♣7, if not because you intend to win one but not the other?

The form of the claim does appear to create a slight element of doubt about what was going on in declarer's mind, but I would not expect this to affect the ruling. It seems much more likely that he just didn't make a very clear claim statement than that he was expecting to make a trick he didn't actually have and didn't need anyway.

[PhilKing]

Can't we just agree that when declarer physically has the rest, he isn't confusing top tricks with a Spearmint gum wrapper, a ticket to a 1995 Take That concert and a Gary Lineker World Cup 1990 sticker?

[mycroft]

Odd, I thought "spade" was explaining how I'm going to get to all those good hearts, rather than "that's what's going on the long diamond". Ah well.

[blackshoe]

It could mean either "that's my entry" or "that's what I'm pitching". Doesn't matter. He's not going to pitch a good heart, is he?

[RMB1]

It could mean either "that's my entry" or "that's what I'm pitching". Doesn't matter. He's not going to pitch a good heart, is he?

He is going to throw a good heart on the good ♦10 (:))

[lamford]

Again there was no clarification statement. Placing some or all of the cards on the table enables the opponent to judge the claim, but it is not a "statement". The word "spade" on its own is meaningless although it probably shows that declarer was aware that there was an entry to dummy. We fall back on the worst "normal" line for declarer, as we are told to. I think it is worse than careless to not notice whether the jack of diamonds falls, and I would give declarer the remainder whether or not it does.

[barmar]

IMO, anyone who would dispute this claim is a total SB. Any idiot can see that there are 8 top tricks, no communication problems, and no need for any critical cards to fall or finesses to make. This is the kind of situation where most players will just show their hand and everyone else would just put their cards back in the board, no questions asked. In fact, the defenders are just trying to take as many tricks as they can before conceding the inevitable remainder.