Claim what is correct?

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdcqt75&w=shdc&n=sjhdcak4&e=sqhdt9cj]399|300[/hv]

 

Hearts were trump.

With 4 cards to be played North claims tabling his hand saying the rest are mine.

 

True if he cashes clubs first, however if north leads his Spade first he will lose 3 tricks.

 

Director awarded E/W 1 trick.

 

What is correct?

 

Thank you

[TylerE]

Seriously? If a director made that ruling at my table - regardless of which side I was on - I'd never play in his game again. 4 tricks, even for a rank novice.

[Bbradley62]

It sounds to me like North thinks his ♠J is good, and he might play is first simply because he thinks it doesn't matter. This is especially true if clubs have not yet been played (we can't know based on the post) and West might be holding 3-4 small clubs, so North might not even know whether South's fourth club sets up. But I don't see how any play leads to East getting exactly one trick.

[blackshoe]

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

"I have the rest" is not "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played". Therefore, there is doubt as to what line declarer had in mind (and I don't care if he's Joe "I just fell off the turnip truck" or the greatest card player who ever lived). The director is instructed to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming side. Play of the ♠J might well be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but it's still "normal" within the meaning of the law. BBradley is correct then that the director should rule on the basis that declarer might lead the ♠J, thinking it is good. In such a case, East might well get three tricks, so the correct ruling is three tricks to EW.

 

If you don't want this kind of ruling on your claims, then for God's sake, make a clear claim statement when you claim!

 

Note that "should" in the quoted law means that failure to do it is an infraction of law. You don't get to break the law and then have the director give you your claim on a silver plate.

[RMB1]

Three tricks to EW.

[gordontd]

It sounds to me like North thinks his ♠J is good, and he might play is first simply because he thinks it doesn't matter. This is especially true if clubs have not yet been played (we can't know based on the post) and West might be holding 3-4 small clubs, so North might not even know whether South's fourth club sets up. But I don't see how any play leads to East getting exactly one trick.

Starting with the ♣Q inevitably leads to East getting exactly one trick. Not that I am suggesting this as a correct ruling.

[whereagles]

What a relief adjudication doesn't allow for split scores... lol.

 

Agree to 3 tricks EW. Might seem unfair, but I think it's the correct ruling. (Note that there's a law saying rulings must be applied regardless of severity http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[sfi]

What is the actual club position and play up to this point? If the CJ is the only one outstanding, then it's likely declarer was just claiming four club tricks. I wouldn't feel comfortable adjudicating without obtaining further information.

[mr1303]

What sfi said. If enough clubs have been discarded that the clubs are 100%, then surely that's allowable. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Tyler.

[RMB1]

Starting with the ♣Q inevitably leads to East getting exactly one trick.

Not inevitably, North can still lead ♠J to trick 12.

[gordontd]

Not inevitably, North can still lead ♠J to trick 12.

Ah but that would not be a 'normal' line according to my notes!

[lamford]

It is not a normal line to begin with the queen of clubs. Otherwise we would give the defence trick(s) when declarer claims three tricks with Ax opposite KQx if he needs to begin with the ace. Declarer is allowed even to take the club finesse here if East begins with Jxxx of clubs and West shows out on one of the first two rounds. It is assumed, in Law 70E1, that failing to take a marked finesse is always worse than careless, and, I submit by the same principle, failing to notice that an honour card is high or is not high is also worse than careless. As we move down to non-honour cards, I think that failing to notice that a nine is high or is not high is just careless.

 

Inevitably, "careless" and "normal" are left to the TD's discretion, and there does not appear to be uniformity as this thread shows.

[mycroft]

I agree, it depends on the club plays from before. But I would ask declarer what she was thinking; and use that as (self-serving) evidence as well. Who knows, people have told me "my hand's all high" before...

 

It is entirely normal* to forget that the ♠J isn't high - I do it at the table entirely too often (although it's usually "I just have to knock out the Ace - oops, forgot I got my tricks in the suit, but *didn't* knock out the Ace). But if it's clear that the clubs run, then the clubs run and I don't care. If it's not clear, then three tricks to defence on the ♠J, yeah.

 

I can't see any sensible play that leads to 1 trick for E/W (as people say, that involves club to the Q trick 10 or 11, which isn't normal* for anybody who's gone through the basic lessons) - I'm guessing the director was trying to be "nice". Zero or three tricks seem to be the options. Without the rest of the hand and the play, I can't tell which is the correct ruling.

 

"I have the rest" is explicitly not "my hand is high", however (despite what my opponents keep thinking).

[Bbradley62]

What is the actual club position and play up to this point? If the CJ is the only one outstanding, then it's likely declarer was just claiming four club tricks. I wouldn't feel comfortable adjudicating without obtaining further information.

This. We can't know what's right without more information. As I see it, there are two possible outcomes:

1. Declarer is aware (and states upon director's inquiry) that at least 3 clubs have been played and therefore his four clubs run. In this case, I'd award him the remaining four tricks, but hit him with a procedural penalty for his sloppy claim. (It's even quicker to say "clubs" than "I have the rest".)
   
2. Otherwise, declarer loses three tricks and there's no need to add insult to injury by adding a pp.

[dickiegera]

This. We can't know what's right without more information. As I see it, there are two possible outcomes:

1. Declarer is aware (and states upon director's inquiry) that at least 3 clubs have been played and therefore his four clubs run. I this case, I'd award him the remaining four tricks, but hit him with a procedural penalty for his sloppy claim. (It's even quicker to say "clubs" than "I have the rest".)
   
2. Otherwise, declarer loses three tricks and there's no need to add insult to injury by adding a pp.

 

 

 

 

Clubs had never been played up to this point.

East was dealt a stiff J of clubs.

North and South never dis carded any clubs.

Don't know if west had discarded any clubs,

[TylerE]

Well that kinda changes things. You can't present a hand in this situation as empty (e.g. no relevant cards) when it does in fact contain relevant cards (e.g. the 3 or 4 clubs that are missing)

[barmar]

Well that kinda changes things. You can't present a hand in this situation as empty (e.g. no relevant cards) when it does in fact contain relevant cards (e.g. the 3 or 4 clubs that are missing)

I suspect the idea is that the only "normal" play starts with cashing a high club in the North hand, at which time the stiff J will appear. So even though declarer couldn't actually know that the clubs would run at the time he made the claim, the distribution is such that it doesn't matter.

 

But the claim statement suggests that declarer also thought the spade was good.

[barmar]

But I don't see how you award EW 1 trick. Either you give them 3 tricks because you consider leading the spade to be normal because you think it's good, or you give declarer all the tricks because you think the only normal line is to test the clubs first.

[blackshoe]

How do you award EW one trick? Simple: director error. :D

[Bbradley62]

But I don't see how you award EW 1 trick. Either you give them 3 tricks because you consider leading the spade to be normal because you think it's good, or you give declarer all the tricks because you think the only normal line is to test the clubs first.

How do you award EW one trick? Simple: director error. :D

I'm gonna guess that declarer needed 3 of the last 4 to make his contract, so Director spastically thought his ruling would give North a little slap on the wrist for not making a better claim.

[lamford]

<snip> Director spastically thought <snip>

As Tiger Woods found to his cost, the adverb therein is not regarded as any more appropriate in today's world than Benedict Cumberbatch's recent use of "coloured".

[lamford]

Clubs had never been played up to this point.

East was dealt a stiff J of clubs.

North and South never discarded any clubs.

Don't know if west had discarded any clubs.

One of those statements has to be untrue, and I suspect it is the last. If the first three are true, you know that West began with five small clubs and must have discarded at least one. If you had written, "Don't know if West had discarded more than one club", then that could be true.

[TylerE]

I suspect the idea is that the only "normal" play starts with cashing a high club in the North hand, at which time the stiff J will appear. So even though declarer couldn't actually know that the clubs would run at the time he made the claim, the distribution is such that it doesn't matter.

 

But the claim statement suggests that declarer also thought the spade was good.

 

I more or less agree with that and I still think 4 tricks for declarer is probably right, I'm just a bit less happy about it. My general view on claims is that the purpose is to speed the game up in uninteresting positions and I generally support the idea that that means play high cards first and anything that turns up turns up, not that a claim is an excuse for the local SB to go nuts.

[blackshoe]

One of those statements has to be untrue, and I suspect it is the last. If the first three are true, you know that West began with five small clubs and must have discarded at least one. If you had written, "Don't know if West had discarded more than one club", then that could be true.

"Don't know if west discarded any clubs" has, I suspect, more to do with memory than with whether West must have discarded at least one.