Defensive claim

[ahydra]

[hv=pc=n&s=shd8ck953&w=s7hdqt42c&n=sqh9dcj76&e=shjdajcqt&d=w&v=b&a=1dx1h2cpp2d2sxp3d3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, club game, NS are intermediate level, EW advanced level. Spots approximate.

 

Having lost 2 tricks so far, South, declarer in 3S is on lead and plays the CK. West goes into the tank and before he can play a card East claims one trick (the CQ). West immediately objects. The TD is called, how should she rule?

 

If you believe West, he will confirm he knew partner had the queen of clubs (from a suit-preference signal earlier in the play).

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[gszes]

Laws are supposed to maintain a fair result if possible. Depsite east's incredibly underwhelming claim there is no realistic possibility declarer can score more than 2 tricks. It is obvious from the tank west does not KNOW it is right to ruff the club K. This defense would hold declarer to 1 trick. I would grant declarer the club K and trump Q but the rest goes to the defense since they cannot actually lose more than 2 tricks (just like one cannot lose the trump ace by conceding all the remaining tricks). I have been wrong before so let's hear from some professionals:)))

[RMB1]

... West goes into the tank and before he can play a card East claims one trick (the CQ). West immediately objects. The TD is called, how should she rule?

 

Surely the TD must rule that East has claimed and conceded some tricks, West has immediately objected, so play continues.

[pran]

Surely the TD must rule that East has claimed and conceded some tricks, West has immediately objected, so play continues.

Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

Play continues, but because of his tank West should now not be allowed to ruff the ♣K.

[blackshoe]

West tanked, so West has UI?

[RMB1]

West tanked, so West has UI?

 

East claimed a trick with ♣Q, so West has UI.

 

West tanked, so West has logical alternatives.

[blackshoe]

What, precisely, was East's claim? If he said "I have the ♣Q", or showed it, that's one thing. If he just said "I object", that's a different thing.

 

Having logical alternatives is only part of the picture.

[ahydra]

What, precisely, was East's claim? If he said "I have the ♣Q", or showed it, that's one thing. If he just said "I object", that's a different thing.

 

• 
   
  
• East said "I make the CQ" and showed that card (only).
  
• West said "no, wait a minute".
  
• East called the TD.
   
  

 

ahydra

[RMB1]

The crucial cards from West's point of view are ♦A and ♣Q.

When East claims a trick with ♣Q (without showing his hand) what does that suggest about ♦A?

To me East is more likely to claim only one trick if he does not have ♦A.

So I am not sure that ruffing is suggested.

[barmar]

The crucial cards from West's point of view are ♦A and ♣Q.

When East claims a trick with ♣Q (without showing his hand) what does that suggest about ♦A?

To me East is more likely to claim only one trick if he does not have ♦A.

So I am not sure that ruffing is suggested.

It sounds to me like East assumed that declarer had the outstanding trump, and thought his partner was just trying to decide what to discard. If that's so, he thinks both his ♦A and ♥J can be ruffed, so his only trick is the ♣Q. I'm not sure how much that suggests to West about what he should do.

 

I'd also like to see the whole hand, to get an idea of whether West can infer if South could actually have another Ace for his bidding.

[pran]

The way I see it West considers whether or not to use his trump.

If East holds the ♣Q West has every reason to use it, while if South holds the ♣Q in addition to his King (just played) there might be a reason for West to postpone using his trump.

 

East's "interruption" makes it clear (UI) to West that East has the ♣Q and consequently that West should use his trump immediately.

 

Consequently West should be denied the use of his trump to this trick.

[barmar]

The original post says that West "knows" that partner has the ♣Q because of an earlier signal.

[Vampyr]

The original post says that West "knows" that partner has the ♣Q because of an earlier signal.

 

Well... Would East signal with Q10 to however many? To encourage the suit I guess?

[pran]

The original post says that West "knows" that partner has the ♣Q because of an earlier signal.

Yes, I know.

And that just makes me suspect that West seriously considered the possibility of a false signal by East.

 

I would like to see some good reasoning for West not trumping the ♣K knowing that East holds the Queen.

[johnu]

Laws are supposed to maintain a fair result if possible. Depsite east's incredibly underwhelming claim there is no realistic possibility declarer can score more than 2 tricks. It is obvious from the tank west does not KNOW it is right to ruff the club K. This defense would hold declarer to 1 trick. I would grant declarer the club K and trump Q but the rest goes to the defense since they cannot actually lose more than 2 tricks (just like one cannot lose the trump ace by conceding all the remaining tricks). I have been wrong before so let's hear from some professionals:)))

 

I'd have to see the whole hand and play by play, but it's a lot easier for West to say he was sure East had the ♣Q after it was shown in the bad claim.

 

For those saying that West shouldn't be allowed to trump the ♣K, what about when a low club is led to the jack? Declarer could win the jack (you don't "know" who has the queen), draw trump, and run the rest of the clubs and you wouldn't win any tricks. So maybe you should ruff the 2nd club which would be the last trick you take.

 

So maybe West should be able to ruff the ♣K since it is just throwing away a trick(s) if East has the ♣Q, and doesn't make any difference if declarer has it.

[pran]

I'd have to see the whole hand and play by play, but it's a lot easier for West to say he was sure East had the ♣Q after it was shown in the bad claim.

 

For those saying that West shouldn't be allowed to trump the ♣K, what about when a low club is led to the jack? Declarer could win the jack (assuming they had the queen), draw trump, and run the rest of the clubs. Then you would end up with zero or 1 more trick for the defense.

 

I haven't given that much consideration, but I just possibly might rule that West uses his trump on a small club from declarer. "Knowing" that East has the Queen clearly suggests that he does not use his trump.

[ahydra]

Thanks for the responses all. I was East.

 

Unfortunately we don't have hand records at the club, I'll do my best to reconstruct the hands though - it was something like

 

West A7xx Qxx KQxxx x

North QJ10x AK9x x Jxxx

East x Jxxx AJxxx Q10x

South Kxxx xx xx AKxxx

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk986ht8d98cak987&w=sa732hq32dkqt42c2&n=sqjt4hak94d3cj543&e=s5hj765daj765cqt6&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1h2cpp2d2sdp3d3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Opening lead was DK, which held, East playing the 2 (the suit-preference signal mentioned). West switched to a heart, and I think declarer won, played a trump to the K and A, another heart came back and she played the SJ10 then ruffed a small heart in hand. Just prior to the claim position she played the CA (East playing small, showing an odd number), then CK.

 

As barmar suspected, I figured that the outstanding trump was with South so only the CQ was makeable. When I called the TD (who doesn't carry a law book, but instead relies on her experience) she didn't realise that play had to continue as per Law 68B2, instead after some discussion she awarded us two tricks. I figured that couldn't be right - the result should be one (if we force West to ruff the CQ) or four (if we allow West to ruff in immediately).

 

How to handle the question of UI from the exposed CQ is an interesting problem. West can divine declarer's shape - and likely the fact that she doesn't have the CQ since otherwise, with 12 HCPs, she might well have tried for / bid game - so should be able to reason as johnu did, and hence declarer can rule there's no LA to ruffing the CK, for four tricks to the defence.

 

However, as others have pointed out the fact West tanked may suggest he has LAs, in which case we might let declarer win the CK, do not force him to ruff partner's CQ, and the result is three tricks to the defence - which seems to be the most popular vote on the poll. I think that would also be the most likely result if, as per L68B2, play had continued.

 

ahydra

Edited May 9, 2016 by blackshoe
Added hand diagram

[pran]

I don't understand this.

If West trumps the ♣K then East discards his ♣T (His ♣Q is not a penalty card - L68B2!)

Now, except for the trick eventually trumped by North, East has the rest by playing his red cards first and his ♣Q at the end.

Result: Four tricks for the defense.

 

If instead West discards a Diamond on the ♣K then South wins tricks with the ♣K and the ♠Q, but nothing more.

Result: Three tricks for the defense.

 

As the UI suggests West to trump the ♣K I would rule the latter alternative giving three tricks to the defense.

 

I see no normal (in the meaning of Law 70) play giving only two tricks to the defense.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand this.

If West trumps the ♣K then East discards his ♣T (His ♣Q is not a penalty card - L68B2!)

Now, except for the trick eventually trumped by North, East has the rest by playing his red cards first and his ♣Q at the end.

Result: Four tricks for the defense.

 

If instead West discards a Diamond on the ♣K then South wins tricks with the ♣K and the ♠Q, but nothing more.

Result: Three tricks for the defense.

 

As the UI suggests West to trump the ♣K I would rule the latter alternative giving three tricks to the defense.

 

I see no normal (in the meaning of Law 70) play giving only two tricks to the defense.

 

And yet one person voted that the defense get one trick. He must be assuming that East has to play the ♣Q under the King.

[ahydra]

Well, what happens if the TD rules that W will misguess and ruff partner's CQ on the next trick? Then declarer has the rest (assuming there is no issue with blocking the club suit).

 

Thank you Blackshoe for the hand diagram.

 

ahydra

[pran]

Well, what happens if the TD rules that W will misguess and ruff partner's CQ on the next trick?[...]

"Normal" play? Come on - please!

[VixTD]

And yet one person voted that the defense get one trick. He must be assuming that East has to play the ♣Q under the King.

No, as Ahydra says, West might be forced to ruff their partner's queen, to which Pran says:

 

"Normal" play? Come on - please!

even though a few posts earlier he said:

 

The way I see it West considers whether or not to use his trump.

If East holds the ♣Q West has every reason to use it, while if South holds the ♣Q in addition to his King (just played) there might be a reason for West to postpone using his trump.

 

East's "interruption" makes it clear (UI) to West that East has the ♣Q and consequently that West should use his trump immediately.

 

Consequently West should be denied the use of his trump to this trick.

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

 

I could easily be persuaded that this is too harsh on the defence, and that ruffing the second club is not normal, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments yet.

[pran]

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

 

I could easily be persuaded that this is too harsh on the defence, and that ruffing the second club is not normal, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments yet.

May I remind you of my statement earlier in this thread about South leading a low Club instead of the King:

I haven't given that much consideration, but I just possibly might rule that West uses his trump on a small club from declarer. "Knowing" that East has the Queen clearly suggests that he does not use his trump.

[lamford]

West was thinking about not ruffing the ♣K, and the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South suggests they should ruff the king, so they can't do that. Now if South follows with another club towards the jack, West cannot base their play on the unauthorized information that East has the queen rather than South, so ruffing this trick is an action they must choose from among any logical alternatives.

Ruffing the second club is not a logical alternative. If South has the queen of clubs (and I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI), it would be correct to wait to ruff the third club. Ruffing the first or second clubs would then be an error. If East has the queen of clubs, then ruffing the first round of clubs is correct, but ruffing the second round of clubs is not even in the ballpark of "normal".

 

I do find it suprising that anyone would have voted for 1 trick.

[blackshoe]

I totally agree that if East has it then that fact is UI

Um. If East's objection to West's concession conveys information about East's holding to West, then West cannot act on that information, whether or not it's correct. So it doesn't matter whether East actually has the Queen, West can't play him for it.

 

The takeaway from this seems to be "don't ever concede any tricks as a defender unless you are absolutely certain partner doesn't have a trick; don't ever object to partner's concession". The latter because if you object, it won't help matters unless there is no way in hell you can't get your trick, and no way in hell you can crash one of partner's, and if that's the case, partner will have taken your trick(s) into account in his concession.