zenbiddist Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It's trick 12 and declarer claims the rest, with K9 of trumps in dummy sitting over Q7. Declarer is on lead with only non-trumps in hand. The problem is - declarer doesn't realise trumps are outstanding :) Without the claim, if LHO had ruffed in with the queen, could declarer have carelessly called for the nine of trumps? I know I have certainly played a card on autopilot before. I asked the TD about who claimed, to gauge calibre, but the TD remained respectfully mute. Your ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenbiddist Posted May 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Careless or* irrational (autocorrected - sry) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bixby Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 IMO, playing the nine on the Queen would be irrational. But I would still award a trick to the defense, because if LHO ruffs with the seven on trick 12, declarer might play the King. Declarer might do this either because he thinks it doesn't matter, or because he might wake up, remember that the Queen is outstanding, and play to drop it with the King. Declarer can't be allowed to take a successful finesse after claiming when playing for the drop is a logical alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenbiddist Posted May 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Playing for the drop could be a logical alternative if a trump was led from hand at trick twelve, but declarer had only non-trumps. Has nobody ever carelessly under-ruffed or under-finessed before? Be honest. And remember you've just forgotten about TWO trumps :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Drop is not a "logical" alternative because he had only non-trumps in his hand. So ruffing with the king can never be correct. Whether it would be careless or irrational I don't know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Has nobody ever carelessly under-ruffed or under-finessed before? Be honest. And remember you've just forgotten about TWO trumps :)We've also revoked and played out of turn, but we don't assume these are possible when adjudicating claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bixby Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Playing for the drop could be a logical alternative if a trump was led from hand at trick twelve, but declarer had only non-trumps. Oops, that is correct. Sorry. I still think playing the nine on the Queen should be ruled irrational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.