Claiming with a trump out

[Chris3875]

Declarer was in a spade contract and held the winning Club, the winning Diamond and 3 spades to the Jack.

 

RHO had a club, a diamond, the Ten of spades and a couple of other cards.

 

The lead was with LHO.

 

Declarer had obviously forgotten about the outstanding trump, but in my opinion whatever LHO led, Declarer would win the trick and at some stage play out her trumps from the Jack down.

 

RHO objected, saying that Declarer MAY have played a small trump first. My thought is that that would be more than careless play - it would be completely crazy. I allowed the claim to stand.

[blackshoe]

Did declarer state a line of play?

[Vampyr]

In real life declarer would never play a small trump instead of the J.

[blackshoe]

While that thought did occur to me, "never" is a very long time. B-)

[Chris3875]

No line of play was stated as Declarer had forgotten there was a trump out.

[1eyedjack]

No line of play was stated as Declarer had forgotten there was a trump out.

While your conclusion (that declarer had forgotten there was a trump out) is possible, I don't think that it necessarily follows from the premise (no stated line). Is there any other evidence? On occasion, among players who respect my intelligence, I have been known to claim without drawing a single trump and without stating a line. Lazy? Sure, guilty as charged.

 

I suppose that in this instance it is reasonable to suppose that declarer has forgotten about the last trump, regardless of the fact of the matter. Perhaps we should say that "Declarer is deemed to have forgotten that there was a trump out".

 

If declarer is certain that there is no trump out (not the same thing as forgetting that there is a trump out) then it not irrational to play the trumps in any order. If he has a scintilla of doubt in the matter then he would always play them from the top. It then becomes habitual to play them from the top by conditioned reflex so that that is the natural inclination even when no doubt remains.

 

I think that a case can be made for either ruling. If you want to punish declarer for laziness,, go for it. I am pretty sure that left to his own devices he would have made it, and I wasn't even there.

[sanst]

It's probably dependent on the jurisdiction. I find in the ABF Laws Interpretation:

"Law 70C - A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ rather than ‘irrational’ in failing to draw that missing trump or stating how he will take care of it. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the Director should award that trick to the non-claimers

[...]

Law 70E2 - In adjudicating disputed claims involving an unstated line of play the following guidelines apply:

(a) Top down

A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top."

This is more or less the same as in the EBU White Book and the way Dutch TD's are supposed to operate. So in this case the declarer gets his tricks, but I would tell him that this is sheer luck.

[VixTD]

This is more or less the same as in the EBU White Book and the way Dutch TD's are supposed to operate.

What the White Book actually says is:

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.

[shevek]

What the White Book actually says is:

 

This is unhelpful advice for directors.

AK5 & 742 are clear I guess.

 

Let's say West has ♠8

 

and declarer has ♠J7. Jack first because it has a pretty picture on it?

With ♠T7. 10 first because it's an honour?

With ♠97. Bad luck. One down.

 

Don't really care but clarity would be welcome.