(Mis) claim question

[BudH]

I have a question and desire as much a reference to support the answer as the answer itself.

 

At my local ACBL club, a defender started with AJx of trumps with their partner holding xx. The trump ace was won in the middle of the hand and a second round of trumps had been played leaving the trump jack as the only trump owned by the defense.

 

With about 5 cards remaining and the lead in declarer's hand, declarer claims, saying he will give up the high trump to the defense. (There are no side suit losers.)

 

However, declarer at that point held trumps headed by the queen and leading the queen of trumps would have dropped the jack and resulted in winning the rest of the tricks.

 

After play begins on a later board, declarer realizes his error.

 

1. Can declarer get the trick back? (If so, can he do it up the score correction period?)

 

2. Would it matter if he held only trumps in his hand headed by the queen?

 

3. Is there any reference material out regarding this situation?

[robert2734]

I'm a director. If it were impossible for declarer to lose a trick, he would get it back. Since it is possible for declarer to lose the trick with normal play, which includes inferior play or careless play, in my opinion the concession stands. This situation arose at my club. I'd be curious if there is any clarifying material out there beyond the rules of bridge.

[pran]

It is careless, but not irrational by a declarer who thinks that there is just one (high) outstanding trump left, to play a small trump in order to give the defense that trick immediately so that he shall avoid a possibly damaging surprise later in the play.

 

Concession stands. Law 71.2

[BudH]

It is careless, but not irrational by a declarer who thinks that there is just one (high) outstanding trump left, to play a small trump in order to give the defense that trick immediately so that he shall avoid a possibly damaging surprise later in the play.

 

Concession stands. Law 71.2

 

 

The reason I mentioned the case of declarer having all trumps in his hand is (in the ACBL) the presumption for claim purposes that a suit is played from the top down. (If he had any side suit winners that could be ruffed with the defense's jack of trumps, then I presume you would assume that would happen.)

 

So if declarer did have trumps only in his hand at the time of his claim, if, when he realized his error, stated the ACBL concept of playing suits from the top down, what could you show him to confirm he was incorrect (if he is incorrect)?

[billw55]

The reason I mentioned the case of declarer having all trumps in his hand is (in the ACBL) the presumption for claim purposes that a suit is played from the top down.

Personally I hate this rule. IMO if declarer concedes a trick that could be lost, he should lose it.

 

As to the actual ruling in ACBL, I am not sure.

 

[barmar]

The reason I mentioned the case of declarer having all trumps in his hand is (in the ACBL) the presumption for claim purposes that a suit is played from the top down. (If he had any side suit winners that could be ruffed with the defense's jack of trumps, then I presume you would assume that would happen.)

Declarer never said he was going to play trumps at all, so the presumed order of play is not relevant. If he thought he had all winners except for an outstanding high trump, he might play side suits until a defender ruffs with his supposedly natural trump trick.

[mycroft]

Different laws apply (but the same, normal* wording exists) for claims disputed at the time (Law 70) and withdrawn concessions (Law 71) (see also withdrawn acceptance of a claim, Law 69B). Law 70E2 discusses what the RA (in this case the ACBL) is allowed to do in defining "normal*" in terms of how a suit will be played (and the ACBL has done so, in the Tech Files, but that may not apply in this case).

 

How do we define "normal*" for someone who thinks the outstanding trump J is the trump A? I would suggest that the discussion that "normally from the top down" applies in your case 2 - if all declarer has is trumps, there's no reason not to play the Q with one outstanding even if she knows it's bad. For the instant case, if the trump is "high" in her mind, there's no reason to play trumps until case 2 applies, and if the J is going to get a ruff on a side suit play, then, no, we will not cancel the concession.

 

Pran's comment of "a surprise in the play" may also apply - if there's a situation where "all side winners are high, but if *this* trick is ruffed, I can be locked in hand with losers", then playing a trump to lose it can happen, and I don't think the "normally from the top down" applies in that case. Yes, I know that seems contradictory to what I said in the previous paragraph, where "playing anything but the Q even though it's the A out is not normal*"; but everybody's done it, and everyone's seen people do it, so it's within the bounds of normal* (in the previous para., nobody except the "I came here to play bridge/I never claim" people actually does this at the table, so we don't know what happens in practise).

 

Also, clearly, if there is only the trump Q, then even though playing it would drop the J, it is normal* not to play it (frankly, it would be "irrational" to play it!) to lose to the supposed A if the trump is needed to ruff a potential return. My opinion is that it's also normal* not to do this even if all side suits are high. People (at least short of National Championship level) don't do that, even if they should - it's careless, but not irrational, to not realize that you're safe from any return.

 

Q1: If we "shall cancel the concession", then yes, per Law 71, such cancellation can be done up to the end of the score correction period.

 

Note: this is my judgement only (the laws and the Tech Files aren't my judgement, of course). This might be a good question to send to rulings@acbl.org, by the way.

[robert2734]

It does say trumps are played from the top down. It also says the claimer should lose in all drop or finesse situations. Well I learned something.

[pran]

It does say trumps are played from the top down. It also says the claimer should lose in all drop or finesse situations. Well I learned something.

As a Devils's advocate I shall then rule that when declarer (under ACBL rules) call's "a trump" from dummy he is deemed to having called the highest trump available, not the lowest?

 

No way!

[WellSpyder]

Personally, I think it only makes sense to assume declarer will play suits from the top when he thinks he is winning tricks, not when he thinks he is losing them. Since this assumption is not part of the laws anyway, I see no reason to apply it to the circumstances described.

[pran]

Personally, I think it only makes sense to assume declarer will play suits from the top when he thinks he is winning tricks, not when he thinks he is losing them. Since this assumption is not part of the laws anyway, I see no reason to apply it to the circumstances described.

And that is precisely what most (if not all) players will assume. We don't need any silly (sorry) ACBL regulation to confirm that.

[robert2734]

Good to think about these issues before they occur on the job again.

 

At trick twelve, declarer with queen of trump and side ace, thinking the ace of trump is out will play the ace. Whether it is ruffed or not, he has one trick. With same holding thinking the jack of trump is out will play the queen first taking both tricks. Getting it wrong will cost declarer a trick.

 

If declarer has nothing but trumps left and there is one or two trumps outstanding, it never hurts to play trumps from the top. If he has KT9 and the AQJ are missing, he plays the nine hoping to drop the singleton ace. But we can still apply the ACBL guidance to play trumps from the top even if it hurts declarer.

 

If declarer has stoppers in all the suits the defender with the outstanding trump holds, he can draw the last trump whether it wins or not. Does a declarer who made a faulty claim know what side cards the defender holds?

 

If declarer has more than one trump and he knows he doesn't need to ruff anything (all his side cards are good and he knows that), can draw the last trump. It is common to leave the master trump out even if you can afford to draw it.

 

All things considered, I'll have a declarer who thinks the master trump is out try to cash all his side winners. If they all survive, he may now draw trumps from the top.

[billw55]

One could also speculate about alternative understandings of "from the top". If declarer thinks that one master trump is out, then he effectively thinks all of his own are equals. Thus they are all "top", and also bottom, high, low, or whatever. Nobody would make any distinction between QJT9, so why do so with QT74 if they are, in your mind at that moment, equals?

 

OK, maybe I am pushing it because of my own bias on this issue.

[blackshoe]

First, I don't think "he plays trumps from the top" is a regulation. It's certainly not a law. IAC, it cannot supersede "normal includes careless". So in the case where declarer has the boss trump, but thinks his opponent has it, not playing the boss trump would be careless, so in cases where the law tells you to presume the claimer is careless, you cannot assume he isn't.

 

My opinion, of course.

[BudH]

Declarer never said he was going to play trumps at all, so the presumed order of play is not relevant. If he thought he had all winners except for an outstanding high trump, he might play side suits until a defender ruffs with his supposedly natural trump trick.

 

Note I specifically mentioned the case where declarer has only trumps in his hand - and he knows the defense has a single trump.

[BudH]

First, I don't think "he plays trumps from the top" is a regulation. It's certainly not a law. IAC, it cannot supersede "normal includes careless". So in the case where declarer has the boss trump, but thinks his opponent has it, not playing the boss trump would be careless, so in cases where the law tells you to presume the claimer is careless, you cannot assume he isn't.

 

My opinion, of course.

 

Law 70E2: "The regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., “from the top down”) in which the director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified

in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this law)."

 

From ACBL Duplicate Decisions: "It is presumed that trumps are played from the top down."

 

From ACBL Tech. Files: "With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims:

 

A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible

for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the

top down).

 

B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was

likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

 

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

with a "high" trump.

 

D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps

to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.

(Directions - July/October, 1992)

[billw55]

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

with a "high" trump.

This one in particular bothers me. There are many cases when playing even one round of trump after they are drawn will cost. I can see the SB's assertions coming: "Declarer may take a safety check in trumps, after which we can tap him out. Your regulations say this is normal, and he did not specify that he would not do it."

[campboy]

This one in particular bothers me. There are many cases when playing even one round of trump after they are drawn will cost. I can see the SB's assertions coming: "Declarer may take a safety check in trumps, after which we can tap him out. Your regulations say this is normal, and he did not specify that he would not do it."

I think the case this is intended to cover is where there is a genuine safety check available, i.e. it would not cost to play a high trump, but in fact this goes wrong because the trump is not actually high.

 

Hence the position of quote marks in the regulation: if it meant the other thing it would say

It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a "safety" check with a high trump.

[barmar]

As a Devils's advocate I shall then rule that when declarer (under ACBL rules) call's "a trump" from dummy he is deemed to having called the highest trump available, not the lowest?

 

No way!

The ACBL rule in question appears in guidelines for interpreting claim statements. I don't see how that could be construed to contravene Law 46B2:

If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

 

BTW, is it legal to designate a suit by saying "ruff" or "trump"? Law 46 doesn't address this, but many people do it.

[pran]

BTW, is it legal to designate a suit by saying "ruff" or "trump"? Law 46 doesn't address this, but many people do it.

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

[...]

(My enhancement)

 

The designation leaves no doubt about declarer's intention.

[blackshoe]

Law 70E2: "The regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., “from the top down”) in which the director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified

in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this law)."

 

From ACBL Duplicate Decisions: "It is presumed that trumps are played from the top down."

 

From ACBL Tech. Files: "With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims:

 

A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible

for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the

top down).

 

B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was

likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

 

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check

with a "high" trump.

 

D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps

to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.

(Directions - July/October, 1992)

 

I used the word "regulation" for a reason. Guidelines are not regulations.

[barmar]

(My enhancement)

 

The designation leaves no doubt about declarer's intention.

My question was whether it's legal, not whether it could be misinterpreted.

[pran]

My question was whether it's legal, not whether it could be misinterpreted.

 

Law 46A describes "Proper Form for Designating Dummys Card".

 

According to the introduction to the laws a deviation from this description "is an infraction jeopardizing the infractors rights but not often penalized". This can hardly justify the term illegal.

 

Instead Law 46B clearly specifies how to handle "Incomplete or Erroneous Call" without any suggestion of consequence(s) against an offender.

[mycroft]

infraction != illegal ? interesting.

 

It, like the 7 or 8 things you, I, and everyone else do every day in RL, is rarely if ever punished; that doesn't make it not illegal.

[blackshoe]

What Mycroft said.